Opinion ID: 2614564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of motion for j.n.o.v.

Text: ¶14 Collins next assigns as error the trial court's denial of his motion for j.n.o.v., arguing that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient to sustain its verdict. A trial court is justified in granting a motion for j.n.o.v. only when the court concludes that there is no competent evidence to support the verdict after examining the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Gustaveson v. Gregg, 655 P.2d 693, 695 (Utah 1982). When, as here, a party challenges a court's denial of a j.n.o.v. motion with an insufficiency of the evidence argument, we undertake an analysis analogous to the trial court's, and `reverse only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.' Seale v. Gowans, 923 P.2d 1361, 1363 (Utah 1996) (quoting Heslop v. Bank of Utah, 839 P.2d 828, 839 (Utah 1992)) (citations omitted). In a sufficiency determination, an appellate court accepts as true any testimonyand all reasonable inferences derived therefromthat tends to prove the prevailing party's case and disregards any conflicting evidence or evidence that tends to disprove the prevailing party's case. See Turner v. General Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 832 P.2d 62, 65 (Utah Ct.App. 1992). ¶15 We turn now to the evidence at hand. In late 1989, Collins contacted Dr. William Hutson, a gastroenterologist. Dr. Hutson conducted numerous tests to identify Collins' problem. In discussing his diagnosis, Dr. Hutson testified as follows: A. Clinically it suggested one of two things, in all likelihood. One is that Mr. Collins may have had an abnormal result from the surgery that was performed on him, the initial surgery performed in 1989; or the other alternative is that Mr. Collins already had an underlying motility disorder... that then may have been unmasked by a surgery, which is not an uncommon condition. . . . . Q. Had you ever discussed these two possibilities as you've just expressed it [sic] to us, as best you can recall, with either of the Collinses here, either Mr. or Mrs. Collins? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall when you did that? A. I mean, it must have been about the same time in November, December of 1989. I recallthe first visit I recall with them was in the office of the initial visit in October of 1989. I think I gave them my opinion as to what I thought was probably going on at this time. In a discussion with Dr. Hutson nearly a year later, the Collinses asked if something was done wrong during that surgery, referring to the truncal vagotomy and antrectomy Dr. Wilson performed. Again, Dr. Hutson replied that the surgery probably had something to do with [Collins'] whole condition, because that's when he really got sick. Hutson also testified that he had explained on at least one occasion that Collins' condition was incurable no matter what the cause [of his condition], whether surgery was largely responsible or whether it unmasked the condition. Collins supported this testimony during his cross-examination: Q. In fact, Mr. Collins, in December of 1989, isn't it true that Dr. Hutson told you that your problems either were an abnormal result from the vagotomy and antrectomy surgery, or you already had an underlying motility disorder that was unmasked by the surgery? A. Yeah, I heard that. Q. So you're not suggesting that Dr. Hutson is not telling the truth about conversations he had with you about those conditions and about being questioned about Dr. Wilson's operation and procedure? A. No. On cross-examination, Mrs. Collins originally contradicted Dr. Hutson's testimony. However, upon counsel's refreshing her memory with the transcript of Dr. Hudson's testimony, Mrs. Collins admitted that his testimony concerning their discussions was correct. Q. Did Dr. Hutson tell you or your husband in your presence that the surgery probably had something to do with his whole condition, because that's when he really got sick? A. Yes. . . . . Q. You also recall Dr. Hutson telling you and your husband in a December, 1989, conversation that your husband's problems were abnormal results from the vagotomy and antrectomy surgery? A. That he specifically said he had an abnormal result from the antrectomy and vagotomy? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall those words specifically. We did discuss having a poor result. Q. From Dr. Wilson's surgery, correct? A. From surgery. Q. That Dr. Wilson performed, correct? A. Yes. ¶16 Similarly, Dr. Terry Box testified, both on direct examination and on cross-examination, that he assumed Collins' problems were related to the stress of the surgery and that he was sure that we [he and Collins] discussed the possible relationship and possible cause and effect between the vagotomy/antrectomy surgery and Collins' motility problems. When asked what possible causes would have been discussed, Dr. Box replied: An underlying motility disturbance that was brought out by the vagotomy [and] the possibility that the vagotomy in and of itself is the primary cause of this problem. Those are the two most likely possibilities of it. At first, Collins contradicted this testimony under cross-examination, but then could not completely rule out that Dr. Box's having pointed out the connection between the original surgery and the continuing motility difficulties: Q. Would you agree that Dr. Box discussed with you, by August of 1989, the possible cause and effect between the vagotomy and the antrectomy surgery, and the problems that you were experiencing? A. He never said it was the vagotomy and the antrectomy. Q. So if he testified to the contrary, then he would not be telling the truth, are you suggesting? A. I can't remember. He might have told my wife, because every time he talked when I got out of the endoscopy, I was under anesthetic. Unlike her husband, however, Mrs. Collins supported Dr. Box's testimony. When Dr. Wilson's counsel asked her, Do you disagree with Dr. Box that before the end of 1990, he told you and your husband that the vagotomy surgery was a possible cause of your husband's continuing problems? she replied, I don't recall him specifically saying it was because of the vagotomy, but we talked about that it would be a poor result or a complication of the surgery, that we weren't sure why this complication had happened. (Emphasis added.) ¶17 While it is true that both specialists also testified that they did not ever specifically tell the Collinses that Dr. Wilson was negligent or performed the wrong surgery, we must accept as true the testimony presented and all that this testimony implies; namely, that Collins' treating physicians provided him with information suggesting that Dr. Wilson's surgery may have caused or aggravated his continuing motility problems. Even the testimony that the surgery may have uncovered or exacerbated an existing ailment should have been enough to raise the specter of causation in Collins' mind. ¶18 By his own admission and the admission of his wife, Collins was awareor should have been awareof a possible connection between Dr. Wilson's surgery and Collins' continuing motility problems, whether because of the specialists' testimony, medical records, or some other reason. On cross-examination, Collins admitted they had suspicions over two years before they commenced this lawsuit that something had gone wrong in Dr. Wilson's surgery. We note that when Dr. Wilson's attorney asked, From September of 1990 when you were questioning, along with your wife, if something was done wrong with that surgery, why didn't you do anything about it then? Collins did not deny knowing or suspecting. Instead, he simply responded, Because I wasn't blaming nobody [sic]. In addition, Collins began suffering from the severe complications soon after Dr. Wilson's surgery. These complications forced a seven-week hospital stay, as opposed to the three- to five-day stay Collins expected. In fact, many of Collins' expectations were dashed soon after the surgery; he admits that the lack of timely recovery, his inability to digest food normally, his extended hospital stay, and his continuing difficulties and medical problems were all contrary to his expectations. ¶19 We have long held that the two-year statute of limitations period commences to run only when the injured person knew or should have known of an injury and that the injury was caused by a negligent act. See Seale, 923 P.2d at 1363; Foil v. Ballinger, 601 P.2d 144, 147-48 (Utah 1979). Furthermore, [d]iscovery of legal injury, therefore, encompasses both awareness of physical injury and knowledge that the injury is or may be attributable to negligence. Chapman v. Primary Children's Hosp., 784 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Utah 1989) (emphasis added). There is evidence that Collins had the requisite awareness of physical injury almost immediately following the initial surgery. It is reasonable for a jury to assume that as time progressed and his poor condition continued, Collins' awareness grew as well. ¶20 Because the Collinses' discussions with Drs. Hutson and Box took place between 1989 and 1990over two years prior to the filing of this lawsuitand because these discussions involved, in part, the possible connections between the original vagotomy/antrectomy surgery and the post-operative motility difficulties, and because the aftermath of the surgery was so vastly different from Collins' expectations, Collins reasonably should have had knowledge that his injury may be attributable to negligence. ¶21 Thus, we conclude that the jury had evidence before it to find that Collins discovered or should have discovered the injury prior to March 24, 1991. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Collins' j.n.o.v. motion.