I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 1 1 8 6 - S CT BEV ERLY EN TERPRI

SES , I NC . AN D B EVERLY ENTER PRI

S ES-M I S S I S S I PP I , I NC.
v. BARBA RA REE

D
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 08/ 2005 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L
. KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : L OUI S B. L ANOUX M IC H A E L O
. G W IN AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : P HI L I P W . T HOMAS P I E T E R J OHN T E E UW I S S E N NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D
- 07/ 26/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T hi s nu rs i ng h om e n egli gen ce ca se com es before the C our ton appea l f r om the jud g m en t of th e H ind s C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt , F ir st Jud icia l D istri ct, aw ard ing P lai n ti ff B arbar a R eed $400, 000 i n com pens at ory and $1, 500, 000 i n puni t i ve damages
. Fi ndi ng err or in the jury instruction s a n d the e x clus ion o f relev an t ev iden ce , w e rev erse an d rem an d for a
n e w tr ia l.

### 2 FACTS ¶2
. Sar ah Lew i s w as a dmi t t e d t o the Bever l y- I ngl ew ood car e f aci l i t y i n J acks on, M i ssi ssi pp i , on February 27, 2002. A tthe t i m e, s he w as f or ty- f i ve yea r s of

age a nd had pr evi ous l y i ncurr ed a s er i es of s tr okes , the l as tof

w hi ch had l ef

therpar al yzed on one s i de. L e w is s u ffe re d fro m n u m e ro u s a d d iti o n a l m e d ica l p ro b lem s, su c h a s h y p e rte n sio n , ch ro n ic anemi a, a nd r enal f

ai l ur e. She w as una bl e t o s peak orw al k w i thoutas s i s t ance , and nee ded a PE G tube i ns ert ed f

orf eedi ng. ¶3. T hough obvi ous l y i n poor heal th at the t i m e of her admi t t ance , L ew i s w as capa bl e of
c o m m u n ica tin g b y n o d d in g a n d sh a k in g h e r h e a d , an d c o u ld u se a b e d s id e to ilet w ith
s uppor t . She had a s l i ghtc ontr actur e i n one a r m , a nd c oul d w al k f ors hor tdi s t ance s w i t h t he aid o f tw o ca retak ers. A ft er ten m o n ths a t I n g lew o o d , L ew is w a s tra n sfe rred to C o m p ere N u rsin g H o m e a t th e re q u e st o f h e r fa m ily
. A t th is tim e sh e h a d sig n ifica n t co n tra c tu re s in al l of herl i m bs , an d had becom e compl et el y bed- r i dden and unr es pons i ve. She expi r ed at C om per e on J une 6, 2003. ¶ 4
. B a rb a ra R e e d , L e w is’s sis ter , b ro u g h t su it o n b e h a lf o f h e r e sta te a g a in st B e v e rly E n terp rise s, In c . (B E I) , B e v e rl y H e a lth c a re In g lew o o d , an d B e v e rly E n terp rise s– M iss iss ip p i, I nc. ( B E M )
. The c om pl ai nta l l eged negl i gence , a bus e and negl ect , and medi cal m al pr act i ce, and cl ai m ed thatthe D efe ndant s ’ conductcaus ed Lew i s phys i cal i nj ur i es , pai n and
su ffe rin g , m e n tal a n d e m o tio n a l d istre ss , an d lo ss o f th e e n jo y m e n t o f li fe
. A t no p o in t d id R eed c l ai m thatB E M orB E I w as r es pons i bl e f orL ew i s ’ s death.

### 3 T RI AL CO UR T P RO CE E DI NG S ¶5 . D ur i ng t he com pens a t ory d a mage s ph a s e of tr i a l , the Pl a i nt i f

f pr e s e nt e d a t ot al of elev en w itn esse s, inclu d ing three d esig n ated ex p erts, w h o test if ied a s to B E M an d B E I’s negl i gence . R eed w as the f i r s tt o t ake the s t and, and t es t i f i ed thats he of

t en f ound hers i s t er l yi ng i n herow n w as t e ori n otherw i s e uns ani t ary c ondi t i ons . She s ai d the r oom w as notkept cl ean, and thatL ew i s w as as s aul t ed by a r oom m at e w ho B E M knew had a t endenc y f or vi ol entbehavi or . O n cr os s exami nat i on, the D ef endant s att empt ed t o ques t i on R eed a bout a pr evi ous l aw s ui tf

i l ed agai ns tB ayerC orpor at i on, butthei ri nqui ry w as hal t ed by the tr i al
c o u rt . ¶6. U po n con cl usi on of the evide n ce , b o th B E M and B E I m ov ed for dir ect ed v erdi ct s,
w hi ch w er e deni ed. T he j ury r eturned a gene r al ver di cti n f avorof the Pl ai nt i f

f i n the amount of $400, 000. T her eaf

t er , the t ri al judge det erm i ned thatthe f act s of the ca s e w arr ant ed a puni t i ve dam ages hear i ng. A tt he concl us i on of the puni t i ve phas e, the j ury aw ar ded R eed an addi t i onal $1. 5 mi l l i on dol l ar s . T he D ef endant s ’ m ot i ons f

orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct( J . N . O
. V . ) , new tr i al a nd r emi t turw er e deni ed on A pr i l 11, 2005. J udgm entw as
e n ter e d o n M a rc h 8 , 2 0 0 5 . N o tice o f ap p e a l w a s filed o n A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e D e fe n d a n ts
r ai s e numer ous i s s ues on appea l , how ever , w e dee m i tnece s s ar y onl y t o addr es s t he fo llo w in g tw o p o in ts .

### Instru ctionD-4 5 , wh ichwas refu sed, so ug ht to specificallyinstru ct the jury to 1 

### “[ d] ec ideea ch de fe ndant ’s ca seseparat ely.”The Plainti ff ’s argum ent , a

ppar ently a cc ept ed bythe trial co urt, w as basedup onthe p remise that “[t]here w eren’t any sep arate defen ses. Th ere was o nlyon e defen se in th is case, and th at is that sh e was a sickwo man an d all th is was g oin g to hap pento h er anyw ay, andth at w as a joint d efense.” Th is co nclu sionis simply not t rue ; in the ir

re spe ctive answers , both Def endants as se rt ed the theor y that t he injurie s comp la in edof w ere causedby“perso ns o r entities o ther th an th is defen dant.” Th ey also raised M iss. Co d e Ann . § 8 5-5 -7 (R ev. 1 99 9) an d § 11 -75 -15 (Rev . 20 02 ) dealin g w ith contributionof jo int to rtfeasors. 4 DI S CU S S I ON I . E rror i n Jur y I ns t r uc t i ons ¶7. B E M and B E I cont end that they s houl d have been tr eat ed as s epar at e ent i t i es i ns t ead of si m ply bei ng l abeled “t he D efendan t s” i n the i nst ruct i on s subm i t t ed to the jury. B ecause th e trial c o u rt re fu se d to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n th e m w h e n in stru c tin g th e ju ry , the D e fe n d a n ts
ar gue thatthe s t andar ds of car e w er e unj us t i f

i abl y m es hed t ogetheri nt o one ca us e of act i on. 1 ¶8. W h en this C ou rtr eview s a cl ai m of tri al courterrori n gran ti n g o r de n y ing a jury in s tr u c ti o n , w e a re re q u ir e d to re v ie w a ll o f t h e in s tru c tio n s a s a w h o le
. R i char ds on v. N or f ol k & Southern R

y. , 923 So. 2d 1002, 1010 ( M i s s . 2006)
. N o i ns truct i on s houl d be
re v ie w e d in is o la tio n . B u rr v. Miss. B ap tist Medical Ctr. , 90 9 S o . 2d 72 1 , 72 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W hen ana l yzi ng the gr antorr ef us al of a j ury i ns truct i on, tw o ques t i ons s houl d be as ked: D oes the i ns truct i on cont ai n a corr ects t at ementof l aw and i s the i nst ruct i on w ar r ant ed by the evi dence ? H

il l v. D unaw ay , 48 7 S o . 2d 80 7 , 80 9 (M iss. 19 8 6 ). D efe cts i n sp e c ific in stru c tio n s w ill n o t m a n d a te r e v e rsa l w h e n a ll o f th e in stru c tio n s, ta k e n a s a w h o le f a irly

– a lth o u g h n o t p e rfe c tly

– a n n o u n c e th e a p p lic a b le p ri m a ry ru le s o f l a w . B u rto n v. B a rn e tt , 615 So. 2d 58 0, 58 3 ( M i s s . 19 93 )
. The a bo ve s t a nd a r ds no tw i ths t a nd i ng , thi s Cour tw i l l not

### 5

hes i t at e to revers e i f

the i ns truct i ons , w hen ana l yzed i n the aggr egat e, do notf ai r l y and
a d e q u a te ly in s tru c t th e ju ry . R i char ds on , 9 2 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 1 1
. ¶9. T he i ns truct i ons gi ven i n thi s cas e fa i l ed t o m eet even thi s r at her l enient t est , as t he j ury w as compl et el y pr ohi bi t ed f r om f i ndi ng one ent i ty gui l ty w i thouta l s o hol di ng the other l i abl e. T he cl ai m agai ns tB E M w as bas ed upon i t s act i ons as ow nerand oper at orof I ngl ew ood, w hi l e R eed’ s cas e agai ns tBE I f ocus ed on the gr andpar entcorpor at i on’ s al l eged under s t af

f i ng vi a the budgets ys t em. T hes e ar e f unct i ons w hi ch gi ve r i s e t o s epar at e theor i es
o f l i a b i l i ty . Th e j u r y , h owev e r , was n o ti n s tru c t e d th a ti tmus tf i n d th a tBEM a n d BEI b rea ch ed sep ara te du ti es o w ed to L ew is. A s n o ted ab o v e, the instruction s tha t w ere g iven left no pos s i bi l i ty f

orf i ndi ng agai ns tone def

endantbutnott he other , nordi d they pr ovi de f oran appor t i onm entbet w een the al l eged t or t f eas or s . P- 1, forexam pl e, i ns truct ed t hat : “I f you f i nd f orthe D ef

endant s , then yourver di cts hal l be i n t he f ol l ow i ng form : “W e the j ury f i nd f ort he D efe n d an ts. ”’ ¶ 1 0
. In stru c tio n P -1 4 , in e n u m e ra tin g th e e lem e n ts o f th e n e g lig e n c e a c tio n , m a d e th e d u ty
o f B E M i n d ist ing u isha b le f rom that o f B E I. E rron eo u sly m erg ing the c o rpo rati o n s tog ethe r, it rea d : If y o u fin d fro m a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se th a t: 1
. S ara h L ew is w as a reside n t of D ef end an t s n u rsin g h o m e ; 2
. W h il e a reside n t of D e fen da n ts n u rsin g h o m e , S a ra h L e w is w as suf f er i ng fr om a ment al and/ orphys i cal condi t i on r equi r i ng c a re o r a tten tio n b

y D e fen da n ts ; 3
. D ef endant s ’s hould have be en re as onabl y aw ar e of

Sar ah L ew is’co n d it ion ;

### 6 4
. D ef endant s ’f ai l ed to pr ovi de the car e and at t ent i on thatSar ah L e w is’ c o n d iti o n re a so n a b ly req u ire d a n d su c h fa ilu re re su lted in i nj ur i es t o Sar ah Lew i s ; and 5 . D ef endant s ’f ai l ur e to pr ovi de s uch car e and at t ent i on w as the s ol e pr oxi m at e ca us e ora pr oxi m at e contr i but i ng caus e of Sar ah L e w is ’ i n

ju ri e s ; th e n y o u r v e rd ic t s h a ll b e fo r t h e P la in tif f.” (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶ 1 1
. N o t o n ly w e re th e se in stru c tio n s fa c tu a lly fla w e d a n d m isle a d in g , th e y w e re leg a lly in a c c u rate. N o pro o f w as p rese n ted sh o w ing th at B E I had an y ha n d s-on resp o n sibil it ies to pat i ent s , norw as ther e evi dence of a contr actcr eat i ng a duty f l ow i ng f r om B E I t o L ew i s . T he compl ai nti t s el f

al l eged thatB E I ’ s duty and al l eged br eac h ar os e onl y w i thi n the cont extof th e b u d g e tin g s y s te m . ¶ 1 2
. A p a rty is e n tit led to a n in stru c tio n re g a rd in g a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t w h e n it is s u p p o rt e d b y th e e v id e n c e . D eLau ghterv. L aw r ence Cou nt y H os p. , 601 So. 2d 818, 824 ( M i s s . 1992)
. T he evi dence es t abl i s hed thatB E M and B E I w er e se par at e ent i t i es , ther ef or e,
eac h corpor at i on s houl d have bee n j udged by the j ury acc or di ng t o the evi dence and l aw
s p e c if ic a lly a p p lic a b le to e a c h a s a p u ta tiv e jo in t to rt fe a s o r. See Fielderv. Magnolia B ev. Co. , 757 So. 2d 925, 932- 934 ( M i s s . 1999 ) ( j ury i ns truct i on s houl d al l ow f orapport i onm entof fa u lt b e tw e e n jo in t to rtfe a so rs) ; Ma c kT ru c ks, In c . v. T

a c k e tt , 841 So. 2d 1107, 1116- 17 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ) ( sta tin g th a t u n d e r M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 8 5 -5 -7 , trier o f f a c t sh o u ld a llo c a te f aul tt o eac h party al l eged t o be atf aul t )
. Ins truct i ons segr egat i ng the cl ai m s of duty, br eac h,
c a u s a t i o n , a n d d a ma g e s a ga i ns te a c h Def e n d a n twer e r e q u i r e d b u twer e n o tg i v e n . To compound t he err or , the al l ow ed i ns truct i ons fa i l ed t o di s t i ngui s h betw een the tw o ent i t i es and

### 7

f ur therdecl i ned t o i dent i f y any spec i f

i c dut i es ow ed t o L ew i s by B E M orB E I . A ccor di ngl y,
u p o n re m a n d , a ll in s tru c tio n s th a t d o n o t c o m p ly w ith th e s e p ri n c ip le s s h o u ld b e re fu s e d
. I I . E xcl usi on of

E vi dence ¶ 1 3
. O n Ja n u a ry 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , p rio r to h e r a d m iss io n to In g lew o o d , L e w is in iti a ted a p ro d u c ts l i abi l i ty proc eedi ng agai ns tB ayerC orpor at i on. I n thi s l aw s ui t , s he al l eged thatan i ngr edi ent f ound i n A l ka Sel t zerPl us , a drug m anuf actur ed by B ayer , caus ed the s tr okes thatm andat ed her pla cementi n the nur s i ng hom e. I n the amended compl ai nt , f i l ed February 6, 2002, t he cl ai m ed damages i ncl uded “pa i n, s uf f er i ng” and “ l os s of

enj oym ent of l i f

e. ” Lew i s s ought
m o n e ta ry re lie f fo r “ [a ]ss is ta n c e in d a y -t o -d a y c a re ,” a n d fo r “ m a in te n a n c e a n d a s s is ta n c e .” ¶1 4
. A se c o n d c laim w a s filed a g a inst B ay er in A u g u st of 2 0 0 3 , ap p are n tl y as p art of a
m ul t i
- di s tr i ctl i t i gat i on pr ocee di ng. A gai n L ew i s cl ai m ed “pa i n, s uf f er i ng ” and “l os s of
en j oy mento f

l i f e ” a nd s t a t e d tha ts he woul d r e qu i r e “ a s s i s t a nc e i n da y- t o- day ca r e,
m a in te n a n c e a n d a s s is ta n c e . . . .” ¶1 5 . T h ese all eg ati o n s esse n ti all y m irror th o se f rom the co m p lai n t ag ains t B E M an d B E I,
w her ei n R eed c l ai m ed the damages of “pain and suf

f er i ng. . . and l os s of

the enj oym entof l i f e. ” She addi t i onal l y s oughtr ecove ry f or“pas tand f

utur e medi cal expens es . ” ¶ 1 6
. D u rin g trial, d e fe n se c o u n se l a ttem p ted to q u e stio n R e e d a b o u t th e s e s im ila ritie s in damages
. A f

t ers ever al m i nut es of

t es t i m ony, how ever , the tr i al cour tpr ohi bi t ed f ur ther q u e stio n in g a n d e x c u se d th e ju ry . W h e n d e fe n se c o u n se l ar g u e d th a t R e e d w a s s e e k in g d o u b le
re c o v e ry , the c o u rt re p lied : I d o n ’t u n d e rsta n d tha t co u n se l. I d o n ’t u n d e rsta n d tha t. If th e alle g a tio n s in th is ca se a re b ase d u p o n n eg lect, th e n ce rt ainly I’m n o t go ing to let th is j u ry cons i derthe pai n and s uf f er i ng t hatM s . L ew i s exper i ence d as a r es ul tof t aki ng

### 8

B ayer . Fr om youranal ys i s , I w oul d have t o al l ow evi dence i n r egar di ng w hat pai n and s uf

f er i ng B ayercaus ed her
. Fr om w hatyou’ r e t el l i ng t he cour tI need to le t a ll th e d a m a g e s th a t s h e ’s c o n te n d in g in th e o th e r l a w s u it in th is c a s e . . .

. ¶17. B E M and B E I cont end that thi s rul i ng w as err or , and that they s houl d be gi ven a new tr ia l. ¶18. O urw el l
- es t abl i s hed s t andar d f orr evi ew i ng the t r i al court ’ s admi s s i on or s uppr es s i on
o f ev iden ce is ab u se o f discre ti o n , an d the d iscreti o n po sses sed b y a tri al co u rtin su ch m att ers is n o d o u b t g re a t. S to c kstill v. G a m m ill , 943 So. 2d 35, 44 (M i ss. 2006)
. Fora ca s e t o be
re v e rse d b a se d u p o n th e e rro n e o u s a d m iss io n o r e x c lu sio n o f e v id e n c e , the e rro r m u st re su lt in p re ju d ic e o rh a r m th a t a d v e rs e ly a ff e c ts a s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t o f a p a rt y . W indm on v. Ma rs h a ll , 926 So. 2d 867, 876 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng Busic k v. St . Jo hn , 856 S o. 2d 304, 319 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ))
. ¶1 9. H er e, t he t r i al c ou r tu l t i mat e l y c on c l ud e d thatt he evi dence w as “i m pr oper and i nadmi s s i bl e. ” W e di s agr ee. E vi dence i s r el evanti f i t“t ends t o make the exi s t ence of a ny f act thati s of cons equenc e t o the det erm i nat i on of the ac t i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than itw o u ld b e w ith o u t th e ev iden ce . ” M iss. R . E v id. 40 1
. Info rm ati o n reg ard ing the P lai n ti ff’ s
co n d it ion prior t o th e all eg ed ne g li g en ce w o u ld ce rt ainly be rel ev an t in th is instan ce to det erm i ne w hetherornotL ew i s had i ndeed s uf f er ed new and di s t i ncti nj ur i es atthe hands of
e ith e r B E M o r B E I. See B la k e v. Clein , 903 So. 2d 710, 724 ( M i s s . 2005) ( hol di ng t es t i m ony ab o u t Plainti ff’ s m en tal an d p h y sical sta te be fore tr ea tm en t by p h y sici an w as re leva n t)
. T herefo re, i t ob viousl y w as proper f or defense cou nsel t o q uest i on the si m i l ari t i es of these

### 9

damages i n or dert o det erm i ne w hetherornotthey w er e ac tual l y cau sed b y a t hi r d par ty,
n a m e ly B a y e r C o rp o ra tio n . ¶2 0
. C o u n se l fo r th e P lain tiff arg u ed th at th is q u esti o n ing w a s m e re ly a n a ttem p t to p re ju d ice R e e d b y in sin u a tin g th a t sh e w a s lit ig io u s. M .R .E . 4 0 3 a d d re ss e s th is c o n c e rn w ith a bal anci ng t es tt o det erm i ne w hethert he proba t i ve val ue of such evi dence i s out w ei ghed by th e ri s k o f u n d u e p re

ju d ic e . P a lm e r v . S ta te , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶21. I n t hi s cas e, t he presum pt i on t hatal l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng w er e di s s i m i l ari s of no
c o n se q u e n c e . T h e D e fe n d a n ts s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a ffo rd e d th e o p p o rtu n ity to su ffic ien tly exami ne the Pl ai nt i f

f’ s w i tnes s es r egar di ng the al l eged d am ages f r om the otherl aw s ui tas
nece s s ary t o pr es entthei rtheori es of the ca s e, i
. e. , thatL ew i s ’ s pr eexi s t i ng condi t i on,
so m e th in g th a t w a s a lleg e d ly c a u se d b y a third p a rty , w a s th e c a u se o f h e r d e ter io ra tio n w h ile atI ngl ew ood. CO NC L US I ON ¶22
. P rot ect i ng vu l nerabl e m em bers of ou r soci et y i s, w i tho ut qu est i on , an i ssue of ut m ost im p o rt an ce . In o rde r t o safe g u ard the integ ri ty o f o u r j u d ici al sy stem h o w ev er, i t i s a c o u rt ’s t as k t o ens ur e thatal l part i es r ecei ve a funda m ent al l y f ai rtr i al
. A s w e ca nnoti n good
cons ci ence s ay thatB E M and B E I w er e af f or ded s uch, thi s cas e i s her eby re ver s ed and
re m a n d e d fo r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . ¶ 2 3
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A L L E R , P .J ., C A R L S O N , D I C K I N S O N , R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , J J ., CONCUR. EAS LE Y, J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J O I NE D BY G R A V E S, J.

### 10

DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶24. B eca us e t he t r i al bel ow had no err or , I m us tre s pect f ul l y d i ssent fr om t he opi ni on of th e m a jo ri ty . ¶2 5. The maj or i ty s e t s the s t a ge b y i s s ui ng t he medi cal opi ni on thatM s . L ew i s w as “obvi ous l y i n poorheal th att he t i m e of heradmi tt ance . ” The m aj or i ty does acknow l edge that M s . L ew i s ’ s i s t er“t est i fi ed t hat s he of t en f ound hers i s t erl yi ng i n herow n w as t e. ” Y ett he t es t i m ony r evea l ed an e ven w or s e s cena r i o. M s . R eed t es t i f i ed t hat she had on numer ous
occa s i ons c om e t o vi s i the rs i s t era tBever l y a nd ha d di s cover ed herdi s abl ed l oved one l yi ng i n herow n ur i ne a nd f

e c e s . O f t e n i ta pp e a r e d tha ts he h a d be e n l yi ng i n he ro w n w a s t e f or a l engthy per i od of

t i m e. Fam i l y mem ber s t es t i f i ed thatthey w er e t ol d M s . L ew i s coul d be cl eane d l at er , w hen t hey w er e l es s busy ornoton br eak. O nce M s . R eed di s cover ed ar ound tw en ty-th ree d iape rs be lon g ing to o ther p atien ts sho v ed b eh ind the d resse r i n h er sist er’s
r o o m. ¶26. M s . Reed a l s o t es t i f i ed thaton f

ourorf i ve s epar at e occ as i ons s he di s cover ed her s i s t er
w i th dr i ed vomi tar ound herm outh. She al s o t es t i f i ed thatB ever l y r egul ar l y f ai l ed t o keep L ew i s bathed and i n the mostbas i c hygi eni c condi t i on. M s. R eed t es t i f i ed thats he had i nf or m ed the s t af

f m ul t i pl e t i m es aboutthe horr i f yi ng s t at e hers i s t erw as i n; they al w ays p ro m is e d th e y w e re “ g o in g to d o b e tte r.” ¶27
. E xp ert t est i m on y w as off ered that dem on strat ed B everl y fai l ed t o ch art M s. L ew i s’
m edi cal condi t i on i n vi ol at i on of s t at e and f

eder al l aw . Ther e w as a l s o e xpertt es t i m ony t hat B ever l y f

ai l ed t o s eek medi cal att ent i on w hen M s . L ew i s needed ca r e and t hatt he company
c a llo u sly d isc o n tin u e d p h y sic a l th e ra p y , ev e n lea v in g th e b ra c e s M s. L e w is n e e d e d to w a lk

### 11

s tr ew n abouton t he f

l oor . I tw as al s o off

er ed t hatB ever l y had a probl em w i th under s t af f i ng, l eaving w hat l i t t l e care there w as t o b e provided to r esi den t s t o a h and ful of st aff m em bers. ¶28. A s the m aj or i ty s et s out , af t er onl y t en m onths at B ever l y M s . L ew i s “had s i gni f i cant
c o n tr a c tu re s in a ll o f h e r lim b s , a n d h a d b e c o m e c o m p le te ly b e d -r id d e n a n d u n re s p o n s iv e .” In o ther w o rds, he r ve ry b o d y h ad p u ll ed in u p o n it self. I. T h e Ju ry In st ru cti on s. ¶2 9
. T h e m ajority fin d s tha t i t m u st rev erse a n d rem an d b ec au se “B E M ” an d “ B E I” w ere
n o t o ffe re d se p a ra te ju ry in stru c tio n s. T h is ig n o re s th e m o st im p o rta n t fa c t, a n d th e th re sh o ld ques t i on f

orouranal ys i s : A r e thes e tw o compani es actual l y s epar at e ent i t i es , w arr ant i ng
s epar at e i ns truct i ons ? ¶30. I t i s undi s put ed that the s ame att orneys def ended both B ever l y ent i t i es –both B E I and B E M . T hey f

i l ed j oi ntf

i l i ngs and j oi nt l y def

ended the t r i al
. B ever l y’ s l aw yer s never
r eques t ed s epar at e openi ng s t at em ent s f orthe s uppos edl y “s epar at e” c om pani es . Per haps
m os tcr i t i cal l y, att orneys f orB ever l y neverr eques t ed a s epar at e se r i es of per empt ory s tr i kes
orj ur orchal l enges foreach s uppos edl y “se par at e” company. I ndeed, B ever l y’ s or i gi nal s et
o f p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s tru c t i o n s r e p e a t e d l y r e f e rr e d t o “ th e B e v e r l y d e f e n d a n t s . ” Be v e r l y ’ s o wn i ns truct i ons di d noti ncl ude the f i ct i on of s epar at i ng B E I and B E M . I ti s al s o not ew or thy t hat
o ri g in a lly B e v e rl y d id n o t r e q u e s t a n a p p o rt io n m e n t in s tru c tio n . ¶31. N ori s ther e a need f ora f i ct i on of s epar at enes s . U nl i ke m any s uch corpor at e s tructur es d ev elop ed to p lace sh iel d after sh iel d i n fr o n t o f assets, B E I and B E M sh are the s am e ins u rer,
a n d th e c l a i ms c o n c e r n i n g th e c a r e p r o v i d e d t o M s . Le wi s a r e c o v e r e d u n d e rth e s a me

### 12

pol i ci es . B ever l y admi t t ed att r i al t hatthe pol i cy l i m i t s f oreac h “s epar at e” c om pany w er e not actual l y s epar at e f

r om eac h other ; i ndeed, they w er e combi ned. ¶32. I n m y view the t ri al co urtcomm i t t ed no err or ; i n l i ghtof the above f

act s any err or
w o u ld sti ll be ha rm less. S ep ara te i n stru cti o n s w o u ld no t ch an g e the v erd ictfor the p lai n ti ff,
n o r p re ju d ic e th e “ tw o ” B e v e rl y d e fe n d a n ts , a s th e y s h a re d in s u ra n c e p o lic ie s . I I . T he E xcl usi on of

I rre l evant E vi dence. ¶33. Pr i or t o her i nt ernm ent at B ever l y, M s . L ew i s s ued the drug company B ayer , al l egi ng i tcau sed herm ul t i pl e s tr okes
. I tw as thos e s tr okes that , i n part , nece s s i t at ed hert i m e at B everl y. T he tr i al j ud ge all ow ed the sui tt o b e broug ht up on the cross- exam i nati on of M s. R eed, and i tw as di s cus s ed bef or e t he j ury bef

or e def ens e couns el at t empt ed t o bri ng up t he qu est i on of dam ages. C ou nsel f or the p l ai nti ff

i n thi s case w ere notcou nsel i n the ot her case
a n d a s s e rt e d th e y k n e w littl e o f t h e c a s e o th e r t h a n its e x is te n c e . ¶34. T he boi l erpl at e as s ert i ons i ncl uded i n the tw o compl ai nt s w er e f or“pai n and s uf

f er i ng” and “l os s of

enj oym entof

l i f e. ” O n appea l , B ever l y ar gues i ts houl d have been abl e t o br i ng i n i nf or m at i on aboutthe otherc as e t o combatan al l eged “ doubl e r ecove ry” on beha l f of the p la in tif f. ¶ 3 5 . H o w e v e r, th e tri a l co u rt d iffe re n tiate d th e tw o c a se s, a sc e rta in in g c o rre c tly th a t p a in and s uf f er i ng f r om a s tr oke i s s i m pl y di f f er entf r om pa i n a nd s uf

f er i ng s t emm i ng f

r om nur s i ng h o m e n e g lec t. In m y v iew th is is c o rre c t; th e y a re sim p ly tw o d iffe re n t cr e a tu re s. T h e y d o n o t,
as the maj or i ty theor i zes , “es s ent i al l y m i rr or ” eac h other
. I ndeed, noteven de f ens e couns el
w e n t to th a t le n g th , a d m ittin g to th e tr ia l c o u rt th a t “ th e s p e c if ic a lle g a tio n s a re n o t th e s a m e ,” and l at erconce di ng agai n t hat“the cl ai m i n the [ B ayer ] l aw s ui ti s notnegl ect . ”

### 13

¶36. M or eover, t he tr i al cour tre cogni zed the f ut i l i ty of tryi ng anot hercas e w i thi n a cas e,
r ef us i ng t o f

or ce the att orneys i n a nur s i ng hom e ca s e to dif fer ent i at e the s uppos ed i nj ur i es i n a pharm ace ut i cal cas e ( couns el f orthe pl ai nt i f

f i n thi s c as e w er e notcouns el agai ns tB ayer and knew l i t t l e aboutthe cas e otherthan i t s e xi s t ence )
. I n i t s rul i ng on the m at t er–w hi ch
o c c u rre d so m e p e rio d o f tim e a fte r th e lan g u a g e q u o ted b y th e m a jo rity

– th e tria l c o u rt a c tu a lly
a g re e d to a lim ited e x ten t w ith d e fe n se c o u n se l: [ A t t orney f

orB ever l y] : . . . T hat ’ s w hy the j ury i s ent i t l ed t o know [ aboutthe othercas e]
. I f

i t ’ s a w r ongf

ul death c l ai m , thos e damages w i l l c arry thr oughout and unt i l the t i m e of

herdeath[ , ] w hi ch w oul d be t hr ough t he t i m e thats he w as i n [ B ever l y] , w hi ch m eans thatthe j ury i s e nt i t l ed t o know thatthey’ r e cl ai m i ng th a t s o m e o n e c a u s e d in

ju ry to h e r d u ri n g th e tim e th a t s h e w a s in [B e v e rl y ]. B Y T H E C O U R T : W ell , I ag ree . T h e jury w il l b e e n ti tl ed to k n o w if they ’re claim ing that som eo n e else n eg lected he r, i f som eo n e else ab u sed he r; the ju ry w o u ld b e e n tit led to k n o w th a t. I ’ m notgoi ng t o l etyou geti nt o thi s l aw s ui t–f eder al courtlaw s ui tany f ur ther
. I ti s i m pr operand i nadmi s s abl e. I agr ee w i th thi s re as oni ng. U nderourrul es , the tr i al courthas gr eatl eew ay i n the admi s s i on of evi dence and can excl ude thatw hi ch i s notr el evant . T he m aj or i ty t oday gr eat l y l i m i t s t hat p o w e r. ¶37. T he def

ens e w as al r eady al l ow ed t o br i ng evi dence of the other s ui t f orw ar d, cas t i ng doubtupon the damages s uf f er ed by M s . L ew i s . T her ef or e the go al o f t he def ens e w as
ac tually rea ch ed
. Y et B ev erly w ishe s ev en m o re tha n this. Ind ee d , u n d er th e m ajority ’s
m ethod, a pl ai nt i f

f m us tnotonl y pr ove hercas e, s he mustpr ove t he negat i ve of al l other p o s s ib le c a s e s , e v e n if

th e y a re n o t y e t f

a c tu a lly o r l e g a lly d e v e lo p e d
. ¶38. O n r emand, m us tthe pl ai nt i f f now br i ng f

orth m edi cal expert s t o t es t i f y aboutthe drug M s . L ew i s us ed, and i t s al l eged harm ? M us tthey di s pr ove eve ry pos s i bl e theory, no m att er

### 14

h o w a tten u a ted o r irre lev a n t, ab o u t h o w sh e m a y h a v e su ffe re d o th e r h a rm ? M u st th e y , in
es s ence , try thi s ot hercas e w i thi n t hi s cas e? ¶ 3 9
. F o r th e re a so n s a b o v e , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.