Opinion ID: 1103938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: failure to give requested jury charges

Text: In their fourth assignment of error, plaintiffs challenge the court of appeal's finding that the district court did not commit error by refusing to give a jury instruction concerning the dual-role capacity of defendant's expert witnesses. The court of appeal found that the pertinent LMMA provisions do not distinguish between an expert witnesses' testimony as a panel member or as a witness retained by one of the parties, and that the charge suggested by the plaintiffs does not reflect an accurate statement of the law. The court of appeal also found that the plaintiffs had failed to show prejudice arising from the district court's rejection of their requested instruction. In their fifth assignment of error, plaintiffs challenge the court of appeal's finding that the district court did not commit error by failing to offer their special jury instruction drawn from Chauvin v. West Jefferson Mental Health Center, 597 So.2d 134 (La.App. 5th Cir.1992), relative to the principle that a psychiatrist treating a person with a history of depression or suicidal tendencies should restrict the medication dispensed to the smallest feasible amount. The court of appeal found that its own previous decision in Chauvin did not create an elevated duty on the party of psychiatrists treating suicidal patients to the extent that it requires a specific charge. The court of appeal further found that the jury charges in this case as a whole amply set forth the necessary burden of proof imposed on the plaintiffs. In Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 99-2522 (La.8/31/00), 765 So.2d 1017, this court noted the duty of reviewing courts to evaluate allegations of improper jury instructions in light of the entire jury charge to determine if they adequately provide the correct principles of law as applied to the issues framed in the pleadings and evidence and whether they adequately guided the jury in its deliberation. Id. at p. 8, 765 So.2d at 1023. According to Nicholas, the determinative question in such cases is whether the jury instructions misled the jury to the extent that it was prevented from dispensing justice. Brown v. White, 405 So.2d 555, 560 (La.App. 4 Cir.1981), aff'd, 430 So.2d 16 (La.1982). Our review of the record in this case convinces us that the district court's refusal to give the plaintiff's requested jury instructions did not mislead the jury to the extent that it was prevented from doing justice. In fact, our review of the jury charges in their entirety reveals that they adequately provide[d] the correct principles of law as applied to the issues framed in the pleadings and evidence and that they adequately guided the jury in its deliberation. Id. Accordingly, we find no abuse of the district court's discretion in refusing to give the two jury charges requested by the plaintiffs.