A trial court's ruling with respect to a motion for a directed verdict is reviewed de novo on appeal. In reviewing the trial court's ruling, this Court views the evidence presented up to the time of the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, grants that party every reasonable inference, and resolves any conflict in the evidence in that party's favor to decide whether a question of fact existed. A directed verdict is appropriate only when no factual questions exist upon which reasonable minds could differ. Neither the trial court nor this Court may substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Moreover, directed verdicts are viewed with disfavor in negligence cases.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law that is also reviewed de novo on appeal.
The primary purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature. When determining the intent of the Legislature, this Court must first look to the specific language of the statute. If the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute's language is clear, judicial construction is inappropriate. However, if reasonable minds can differ regarding the statute's meaning, judicial construction is appropriate. The question before this Court is whether the statute allows for recovery when the initial opportunity to survive prior to the alleged malpractice is greater than fifty percent, as argued by plaintiffs, or rather, if the statute only allows for recovery when the difference between the opportunity to survive before and after the alleged malpractice is greater than fifty percent, as defendants contend.