Opinion ID: 865224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred by denying bobbie

Text: JOHNSON’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL. A. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. ¶3. The standard of review for denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is de novo as to the law applied by the trial court judge as well as the evidence presented during trial. The legal sufficiency of the evidence, and not the weight of the evidence, is tested in a motion for JNOV. White v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 905 So. 2d 506, 510 (Miss. 2004) (citing Tharp v. Bunge Corp., 641 So. 2d 20, 23 (Miss. 1994)). “If there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict we will affirm the denial of the JNOV.” Natchez Elec. Supply Co. v. Johnson, 2007 WL 2495311 ,  (Miss. Sept. 6, 2007). “‘Substantial evidence’ is information of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different 2 conclusions.” Id. at . All evidence must be viewed by this Court in a light most favorable to support the verdict. Canadian Nat’l/Ill. Central R. Co. v. Hall, 953 So. 2d 1084, 1089 (Miss. 2007); Natchez Elec. & Supply Co., 2007 WL 2495311 at . ¶4. The basis of Johnson’s claim is that St. Dominic was negligent, through its nurse Kattie Minor, by using the wrong length needle and failing to utilize the “z-track” method 1 , in administering the phenergen injection to Johnson, which resulted in a wound, further medical treatment, and ultimately a permanent scar. ¶5. Nurse Minor initially stated during her deposition that she used a one-inch needle. At trial, she testified that her deposition testimony was incorrect and she actually used a oneand-one-half-inch needle. St. Dominic provided testimony that a one-and-one-half-inch needle was the standard of care and the only size needle dispensed on that unit. ¶6. As to Johnson’s second substantive allegation that no jury could have found that the z-track injection method was unnecessary, Johnson’s expert testified that even if the nurse in question had used the z-track technique advocated by Johnson, the patient could not have been assured a different outcome. Further, Johnson’s expert could point to no literature that set forth a directive that specifically stated that phenergan should be administered using the z-track method. St. Dominic’s expert provided evidence that the drug manufacturer did not specify use of the z-track technique in the administration of its product, phenergan. St. Dominic’s expert testified that the z-track method was not the standard of care for intramuscular phenergan injections. 1 The z-track method involves moving the superficial tissue aside with one hand while administering the injection at an angle with the other hand. 3 ¶7. This Court cannot reverse the judgment on the ground that insufficient evidence exists to support a jury verdict relative to the length of the needle or the method of administering the injection. We find that sufficient testimony supported the jury’s verdict for St. Dominic. B. Motion for a New Trial. ¶8. The standard of review on a motion for a new trial is abuse of discretion. Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So. 2d 373, 376 (Miss. 1997). The weight of the evidence, rather than the legal sufficiency, is tested in a motion for a new trial. “When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)); see LiftAll Co. v. Warner, 943 So. 2d 12, 15 (Miss. 2006). Our role of reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence is that of a thirteenth juror.2 Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d at 844. ¶9. The evidence reviewed, however, ought to be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997). “[I]f the jury verdict is supported by the substantial weight of the evidence, it should not be set aside.” Lift-All Co. v. Warner, 943 So. 2d at 15. “This Court shall reverse a trial judge’s denial of a request for 2 As we noted in Bush, this Court has “specifically disclaimed any role as the ‘thirteenth juror’ in the context of granting a new trial on the issue of damages, Patterson v. Liberty Associates, L.P., 910 So. 2d 1014, 1022 (Miss. 2004), as well as when we review a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Allen v. Mac Tools, Inc., 671 So. 2d 636, 646 (Miss. 1996). However, when the trial court (and subsequently the appellate court) reviews a verdict that is alleged to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this presents a distinctive situation which necessitates the court sitting as a ‘thirteenth juror.’” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d at 844, n.2. 4 new trial only when such denial amounts to a [sic] abuse of that judge’s discretion.” Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc., 697 So. 2d 373, 376 (Miss. 1997) (quoting Shields v. Easterling, 676 So. 2d 293, 298 (Miss. 1996) (further quoting Bobby Kitchens, Inc. v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 560 So. 2d 129, 132 (Miss. 1989)). ¶10. A jury’s verdict is given great deference by this Court, and “conflicts of evidence presented at trial are to be resolved by the jury.” Lift-All Co. v. Warner, 943 So. 2d at 1; Blossman Gas, Inc. v. Shelter Mut. Gen. Ins. Co., 920 So. 2d 422, 426 (Miss. 2006); Venton v. Beckham, 845 So. 2d 676, 687 (Miss. 2003) (citing Jackson v. Griffin, 390 So. 2d 287, 289 (Miss. 1980)). Only if the plaintiff makes a strong case for error by the trial court is this Court free to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. The verdict must be contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence in order to warrant a reversal of the verdict and a new trial. Blossman Gas, Inc. v. Shelter Mut. Gen. Ins. Co., 920 So. 2d at 424. This verdict does not, as in Blossman, shock the conscience or rest on a complete lack of evidence. Id. at 426-27. ¶11. The jury was free to accept or reject any or all of the testimony and evidence presented. The jury chose to accept the testimony that supported St. Dominic and rendered a verdict in its favor. This Court finds that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is not contrary to the jury’s verdict for St. Dominic. A reversal of the judgment denying Johnson’s motion for a new trial is not warranted. ¶12. St. Dominic has set forth substantive evidence to counter every element of plaintiff’s prima facie case, thus providing a credible basis for the jury to render a verdict in favor of St. Dominic, which is the legal standard of sufficiency and weight that is required of it. This 5 being the case, this issue is without merit. This Court will not disturb the jury verdict in favor of St. Dominic; the jury’s verdict for the defense will stand; and the trial court’s denial of Johnson’s motion for JNOV, or in the alternative, for a new trial, is hereby affirmed.