Title: Ravi v. Coates

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

662 So. 2d 218 (1995)
P.B. RAVI, M.D.
v.
Sylvia Marie COATES.
Wilma VAUGHN and Cathy Foxworthy
v.
Sylvia Marie COATES.
ATHENS-LIMESTONE HOSPITAL
v.
Sylvia Marie COATES.
1930009, 1930038 and 1930039.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 31, 1995.
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1995.
John S. Key of Eyster, Key, Tubb, Weaver & Roth, Decatur, for P.B. Ravi, M.D.
Mark W. Lee and Dorothy A. Powell of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, P.C., Birmingham, *219 for Athens-Limestone Hosp. Ass'n, Cathy Foxworthy and Wilma Vaughn.
Jerry R. Barksdale, Athens, for Sylvia Marie Coates.
COOK, Justice.
This is an appeal from a $500,000 judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of Sylvia Marie Coats on her medical malpractice claim against Dr. P.B. Ravi, M.D.; the Health Care Authority of Athens and Limestone County d/b/a Athens-Limestone Hospital; and Cathy Foxworthy and Wilma Vaughn, nurse employees of the hospital. We affirm.
In February 1989, Dr. Ravi operated on Sylvia Marie Coates at Athens-Limestone Hospital to remove an ovarian cyst. Following the surgery, she complained of constipation, and, later, of nausea and vomiting. Although she went to see Dr. Ravi several times between February 1989 and May 1990, the cause of her complaints was not correctly diagnosed. In June 1990, Coates was transported by ambulance to Athens-Limestone Hospital, where another doctor discovered "a large mass in her abdomen," appellee's brief, page 9, and performed surgery a few days later. The "mass" was found to be a lap pad that had been left inside Coates's body cavity during her previous surgery.
Coates thereafter filed a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Ravi, Athens-Limestone Hospital, and the two nurses who had assisted Dr. Ravi in her February 1989 surgery. At trial, she contended that Dr. Ravi and/or the two nurses had negligently and/or wantonly allowed the lap pad to be left inside her body cavity during the 1989 surgery. Although there was undisputed evidence that the lap pad, in fact, had been left in Coates's body during the surgery, there was a dispute at trial as to whether, as alleged by Dr. Ravi, there was a miscount by the two nurses or whether, as alleged by the nurses, Dr. Ravi had taken one of the lap pads for further use after the final count of the pads had been made. The jury returned a verdict against all defendants in the amount of $500,000. The trial court granted the hospital's motion to reduce the judgment against it to $100,000 pursuant to § 11-93-2, Ala.Code 1975, but refused to grant the motion to do likewise for the employees of the hospital, Cathy Foxworthy and Wilma Vaughn.
On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court erred to reversal in giving the following jury charge:
R.T. at 613 (emphasis added). The jury charge was practically a direct quote from Ravi v. Williams, 536 So. 2d 1374, 1376 (Ala. 1988), wherein this Court stated:
Ravi v. Williams, 536 So. 2d 1374, 1376-77 (Ala.1988).
In Powell v. Mullins, 479 So. 2d 1119 (Ala.1985), this Court stated that expert testimony was not required in a medical malpractice sponge case in order to establish that the standard of care had been breached. Id., at 1124-25. Powell stands for the proposition that evidence that a sponge was left inside a patient's body cavity is prima facie evidence of negligence. Upon the plaintiff's presentation of such evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that there was no negligence. The defendants in this case contend that the jury charge incorrectly led the jurors to believe that the doctor was guilty of negligence per se. We disagree. Almost immediately before giving the instruction complained of by the defendants, the judge had told the jury:
R.T. at 612.
Coffee County Bank v. Mitchum, 634 So. 2d 148, 151 (Ala.Civ.App.1993). The jury charge was not prejudicial. The trial judge correctly stated the applicable law. The charge complained of merely states that the fact that a doctor delegates the responsibility of counting of sponges to his nurse "does not in itself relieve the physician of the liability." There was no error.
Dr. Ravi contends that the trial court erred in overruling objections to certain hypothetical questions asked of the hospital's expert witness. At trial, Dr. Ravi contended that he had relied on the nurses' sponge count and that the count the nurses gave him while he was closing the incision was inaccurate. The nurses, on the other hand, argued that the sponge count they gave Dr. Ravi was accurate and that he must have taken a sponge after they had made the final count and used it while closing the incision. The hospital's expert stated at trial that he had reviewed all of the medical records and documents in this case and, responding to a hypothetical question, made the following statement, based on his review of those documents, the position of the lap pad when it was taken from Coates's body, and his knowledge of the kind of surgery performed:
R.T. at 532-33. Before the witness gave that testimony, the following had occurred:
R.T. at 528, 530-31. After giving his opinion as to when the lap pad was placed into the body cavity, the witness testified:
R.T. at 542-43.
Maxwell v. State, 620 So. 2d 93, 98 (Ala.Cr. App.1992). In this case, the expert based his opinion on the position of the lap pad when it was removed from Coates's body cavity and *223 on the various medical charts and records that he had reviewed, all of which were in evidence when he testified.
Dr. Ravi also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial; as the basis for a new trial, he contended that some the jurors were given information from an extraneous source regarding a verdict against Dr. Ravi in a previous sponge case. During the hearing on the motion for new trial, several of the jurors were called to testify and each stated that during deliberations they heard a reference to a previous case against Dr. Ravi. Some of the jurors stated that they had heard the information from one of the defendants' attorneys. Each juror, however, stated that that reference did not affect the verdict rendered against Dr. Ravi. There was no error.
Following the trial, the judge granted the hospital's motion to reduce the judgment against it to $100,000 pursuant to § 11-93-2, Ala.Code 1975, but denied the motion to do likewise for the employees of the hospital, Cathy Foxworthy and Wilma Vaughn. The final issue is whether the trial court erred in refusing to reduce the judgment against the nurses. Section § 11-93-2 states:
(Emphasis added.) Coates does not contest the reduction of the verdict against Athens-Limestone Hospital to $100,000; the nurses, however, contend that the statute mandates a reduction of the verdict against them.
The statute states that the cap applies to a governmental entity. A "governmental entity" is defined as:
Section 11-93-1(1), Ala.Code 1975. Immediately thereafter, § 11-93-1(2) defines "employee":
The Legislature could easily have made certain that the $100,000 cap was applicable to "employees" of "governmental entities," but it did not do so. "Unprotected joint tort-feasors are not entitled to the statutory protection against the judgment creditor's right to recover in excess of $100,000." Elmore County Commission v. Ragona, 540 So. 2d 720, 728 (Ala.1989) (Jones, J., concurring specially). Thus, because § 11-93-2 does not apply to the employees of a governmental entity, the court properly refused to reduce the judgment against nurses Foxworthy and Vaughn.
*224 The judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.