Opinion ID: 2300624
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Defendants' Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Text: At the close of plaintiffs' case, defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50. The defendants contended that judgment as a matter of law was warranted because there was [a] complete absence of any testimony what[so]ever on causation. The defendants further argued that plaintiffs had failed to establish that the commitment procedure (as set forth in § 40.1-5-7) would have kept Mr. Almonte committed through the point in time when in actuality he did commit suicide  namely, thirty-six hours after his discharge from the emergency room. The trial justice then proceeded to review the relevant statute and noted that, when a mental health facility receives an application (as could have occurred in this case), it has certain obligations under the law that it must fulfill within twenty-four hours. The trial justice also stated that referral to a mental health facility doesn't mean it's a 72-hour hold. She added that the reference in the statute to seventy-two hours means that you [have] got to complete that initial examination and evaluation within the 72 hours. Moreover, the trial justice noted that, [i]f the psychiatrist determines that the patient is not a candidate for emergency certification, he or she shall be discharged. The plaintiffs' counsel responded to the trial justice's review of the statute by arguing that the instant case has unique issues that resemble spoliation because the jury was left to speculate as to what the psychiatrist would have done. Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel directed the trial justice's attention to the portion of the deposition transcript of Dr. Kurl that had been read into the record at trial in which she stated that, if she had assessed that there was any risk of a suicide attempt on Mr. Almonte's part, he would have been involuntarily committed for 72 hours to the psychiatric facility. (Emphasis added.) In rendering her decision on defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial justice noted that, regardless of whether or not Dr. Kurl was a competent witness to offer the just-mentioned testimony, no objection had been made thereto. The trial justice additionally noted that Dr. Kurl had dealt with patients who presented similar to Mr. Almonte; had submitted applications for certification; and had dealt with psychiatric workers and facilities. The trial justice proceeded to state that, as a result of that background, Dr. Kurl may have had enough experience to offer the just-mentioned testimony. Accordingly, the trial justice denied defendants' Rule 50 motion. At the conclusion of their own case, defendants renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law. Defense counsel reiterated that the instant case completely lacked evidence with respect to causation. The trial justice denied defendants' motion without prejudice to their right to renew it within ten days after a verdict should it be in plaintiffs' favor. E