Opinion ID: 1758759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Duplicate Damages

Text: The appellants next argue that, over their objection, the circuit court submitted six separate verdict forms to the jury, four of which forms contained special interrogatories for each of the three appellants relating to negligence, medical malpractice, breach of contract, and wrongful death. Indeed, the appellants point out that they submitted a general verdict form, as an alternative for consideration by the jury, and it was rejected. The appellants assert that the jury did not know how to segregate damages for the different legal theories and that, as a consequence, its verdicts for negligence and medical malpractice awarded duplicative recoveries for the same injuries. They contend that the jury did not know that Arkansas law prohibits multiple recoveries for the same injuries. They further maintain that the verdict forms asked the jury to assess damages on each separate claim without considering whether the awards were duplicative. The appellants contend that the circuit court should have recognized the risk of double recovery when the defense objected to submitting multiple verdict forms for multiple remedies. We initially observe that this issue of duplication involves only the compensatory damages and not the punitive damages, as the objection made by appellants related only to multiple theories for relief which resulted in the compensatory damages. Secondly, we have some question about whether the appellants preserved this issue for the court's review due to an insufficient record. Although the abstract does not reflect a ruling on the appellants' objection to the multiple verdict forms, the record does reflect that the trial court ruled, stating Same ruling. This court, of course, can go to the record to affirm. See Hosey v. Burgess, 319 Ark. 183, 890 S.W.2d 262 (1995). In the context presented, it appears that the same ruling was to deny the objection to multiple verdict forms for multiple parties. We disagree, nevertheless, that the verdict forms were confusing to the jury. The following forms were given to the jury and completed as indicated: VERDICT FORM: COUNT I ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that there was negligence on the part of Advocat, Inc. that was the cause of the damages or injuries sustained by Margaretha Sauer? &check; Yes No Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that there was negligence on the part of Diversicare Leasing Corporation d/b/a Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center that was the cause of the damages or injuries sustained by Margaretha Sauer? &check; Yes No Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that there was negligence on the part of Diversicare Management Services Co. that was the cause of the damages or injuries sustained by Margaretha Sauer? &check; Yes No If you answered yes to any of the above questions, please proceed: On the claim for ordinary negligence, we, the jury award damages as follows: ___ Estate of Margaretha Sauer $5 million VERDICT FORM: COUNT II MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Advocat, Inc. failed to use reasonable care in treating Margaretha Sauer with the degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by nursing home facilities in the same or similar locality, which was the proximate cause of any damages to Margaretha Sauer? &check; Yes No Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Diversicare Leasing Corporation d/b/a Rich Mountain Nursing and Rehabilitation Center failed to use reasonable care in treating Margaretha Sauer with the degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by nursing home facilities in the same or similar locality, which was the proximate cause of any damages to Margaretha Sauer? &check; Yes No Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Diversicare Management Services Co. failed to use reasonable care in treating Margaretha Sauer with the degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by nursing home facilities in the same or similar locality, which was the proximate cause of any damages to Margaretha Sauer? &check; Yes No If you answered yes to any of the above questions, please proceed: On the claim for Medical Malpractice, we, the jury award damages as follows: ___ Estate of Margaretha Sauer: $10 million Turning to the merits, we have already held in this opinion that the three appellants operated Rich Mountain as one business for purposes of gauging excessive compensatory damages and that the jury's $15 million award for pain and suffering associated with negligence and medical malpractice shocked the conscience of this court. We ordered remittitur of the award by two-thirds and confirmed the imposition of joint and several liability. However, we do not view that holding in the context of excessive damages as dispositive of the issue of duplicative damages. The appellants argue that the jury was confused and because of that confusion awarded double or even triple recovery to the Sauer Estate. Rather than confusing, the verdict forms appear to delineate the claims for relief and the parties. If there was confusion, it was in not distinguishing ordinary negligence from medical malpractice. However, the record does not reflect any attempt by the appellants to offer a clarifying instruction on this point. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion in instructing the jury as it did.