Court Opinion

ID: 9750891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:45:09.104814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:27.516100
License: Public Domain

KING, Associate Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
This case is one of the first of the next generation of cases involving misdiagnosis of cancer followed by treatment and remission arising in the wake of our en banc opinion in Colbert v. Georgetown Univ., 641 A.2d 469 (D.C.1994) (en banc). In Colbert, the plaintiff claimed there was a misdiagnosis of her cancer in 1982, followed by a mastectomy and painful and extensive treatment over the next nine months which caused the cancer to *441go into remission. Mrs. Colbert was informed, however, that “the probability of metastasis and early death [was] ... ninety percent as a result of the defendants’ negligence.” Id. at 474. Although she could have brought an action at that time to recover damages for past expenses and suffering, Mrs. Colbert chose not to. The cancer recurred in late 1986 and the negligence action was filed just under three'years later. We held that the action had been brought after the expiration of the three year statute of limitation, concluding that Mrs. Colbert knew enough in 1982 about both her past injury and her future prospects to bring the action then for both past and future damages. Thus, to avoid dismissal on statute of limitation grounds, Mrs. Colbert should have brought her action within three years of her learning this information. Therefore, the deadline for filing occurred in 1985, and the action filed in 1989 was some four years too late.
In this case the claimed misdiagnosis occurred in December 1989. In mid 1990 Ms. Moattar underwent a mastectomy which was followed by treatment that extended into late 1990, resulting in the cancer going into remission. The complaint, filed in November 1992, sought damages for past injuries and for future noneconomic damages and post-death loss of income. By filing her complaint when she did, Ms. Moattar avoided the statute of limitation problem that barred Mrs. Colbert’s action. There is one crucial difference, however, between the circumstances in Colbert and those presented here. While it was undisputed that there was a ninety percent probability that Mrs. Colbert’s cancer would recur and cause early death, there is considerable disagreement concerning the likelihood of recurrence here. Indeed, there was testimony from defense experts that there was a better than fifty percent chance of long term survival, while plaintiffs experts could only say that recurrence was more likely than not within four years. No expert placed the probability of recurrence anywhere near the range of likelihood that existed in Colbert. In order to avoid a premature rush to judgment on the question of post-death economic damages, the trial court severed that issue for resolution at some later point when information concerning Ms. Moattar’s “probabiliiy of survival would be much more definite.”
I agree that the trial court should be reversed but not for the reasons expressed by the majority. In my view the trial court did not abuse its discretion, under the circumstances presented here, in ordering a separate trial at a later date on the issue of post-death economic damages, because that issue was not then ripe1 for decision; however, for the reasons discussed below, I believe that ruling should have been conditioned upon defense agreement to a dismissal of the future damages claim without prejudice to its being reinstated when, and if, the cancer recurred, coupled with a waiver of the statute of limitations for the future damages claim.
I.
The defense motion to sever the post-death economic damages issue was made and granted, over the plaintiffs objection, before trial. The trial was conducted in May 1994 resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff and an award for damages for losses that occurred previously. The pretrial severance ruling was again challenged in a motion filed after the verdict. That motion was denied and the trial court’s ruling on the issue, as well as its ruling on one other issue which is not before us for decision,2 is set forth in a comprehensive opinion issued in September 1994. See Moattar v. Foxhall Surgical Assoc., 122 Wash D.L. Rep.1981 (D.C.Super.Ct.1994). With respect to the governing facts, the court observed:
*442Vida Moattar, a 39 year old college educated professional woman, sued Dr. Richard DeRosa a general surgeon to whom she had been referred by her OB/GYN, for failing to diagnose her breast cancer in a timely manner. The gist of her claim was that Dr. DeRosa’s eight month delay in performing a biopsy on a small lump in her breast was malpractice that led to very severe consequences — the loss of her breast to cancer, breast reconstruction, the violence of chemotherapy, and intense mental anguish and depression from fears that she would meet an early death leaving her 2 year old son parentless. Dr. DeRo-sa’s position was that the tragedies in Ms. Moattar’s life were not of his making — that he had acted appropriately in closely monitoring but not precipitously performing a biopsy of what to all appearances was a small benign cyst or adenoma.
The traditional standard placing on Ms. Moattar the burden of proving it was more likely than not Dr. DeRosa had fallen below recognized medical standards and caused her injuries was adequate guidance for a jury to [evaluate] liability. The troubling issue in the lawsuit related to future damages, Ms. Moattar’s claim that although she was now free of cancer she nevertheless faced the likelihood of an early death that would cause her to lose decades of earnings in the work force. While no District of Columbia case was directly on point both the United States Supreme Court in discussing general common law principles and Maryland courts in the medical malpractice context have ruled that a tort -victim suing for damages is permitted to base his recovery “on his prospective earnings for the balance of his life expectancy at the time of his injury undiminished by any shortening of that expectancy as a result of the injury.” Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 594, 94 S.Ct. 806, 819, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974) (citation omitted; emphasis in original), see Monias v. Endal, 330 Md. 274, 623 A.2d 656 (1993). Plaintiff had an economic expert who was ready to place a million dollar price tag on that part of her damage claim and two cancer experts who, it was proffered, would testify it was more likely than not Ms. Moattar would be dead within four years.
Plaintiff put on two doctors, Dr. Witman, a cancer specialist and Dr. Battle, a surgeon specializing in colon and breast cancer. In essence, they testified it was more likely than not Ms. Moattar would be dead of cancer within the next four years. Defendant, on the other hand, had equally credentialed cancer experts who gave Ms. Moattar a better than 50 percent chance of survival. In particular, they pointed to characteristics of her excised cancerous tissue that indicated very favorable prospects expected from her chemotherapy treatment and the fact that Ms. Moattar had been carefully monitored for three years and nine months with no sign of the cancer’s recurrence. With each passing month Ms. Moattar’s chances improved. All of the experts, those for Ms. Moattar as well as those who sided with Dr. DeRo-sa, thought the five year mark from cancer excision would be a key marker. If Ms. Moattar successfully passed that hurdle her chances of disease free survival were significantly improved.
In sum, the state of the record was that Ms. Moattar’s cancerous tissue had been removed, no evidence of cancer had been detected since the surgery, the experts hovered on their respective sides of a 50 percent chance of survival, and within a few years Ms. Moattar’s prognosis would be very much clearer.
Id. at 1981, 1986 (footnote omitted). The jury awarded $150,000 for past damages. Although the record is not entirely clear, most of this sum was awarded for noneco-nomic damages because Ms. Moattar apparently was absent from work only for a period of about eight weeks3 during the time she was being treated in 1990.
*443In addition, as the trial court discussed in the above excerpt from its opinion, Ms. Moat-tar sought to recover for future economic damages. Because she had worked continuously after her treatment, and was expected to continue working unless and until recurrence of the cancer prevented her from doing so, the future economic damages she was seeking were for lost wages that would occur after she died from the recurrence of the cancer. In short, she claimed that she was entitled to recover now, the economic damage that would otherwise accrue to her estate after her death, ie., the damages sought by Ms. Moattar were identical to the damages available to her estate after her death pursuant to the survival statute.4 See D.C.Code § 12-101 (1995 Repl.). The defense, objecting to recovery of such damages on the ground that they were premature and speculative, moved in limine to prevent such recovery until such time, if ever, it became more likely, than it was at the time, that death from the recurrence of the cancer would occur. The trial court granted the motion, later observing in the opinion cited above, that was issued after the verdict:
Rule 42 of the Superior Court Civil Rules allows a judge to order separate trials of claims or even of issues where severance is warranted to avoid undue prejudice. It was my belief that deciding liability and damages through trial in this trial while severing out the future wage loss claim for some future time if and when Ms. Moattar’s cancer recurred, best served those ends.
As matters stood, if this jury decided whether Ms. Moattar would succumb in four years (the plaintiffs position) or was more likely to live out a normal life span (defendant’s position) there was a real likelihood of either substantial overcompensation or undercompensation. Ms. Moattar would be overcompensated for decades of non-existent lost wages, $1 million dollars in plaintiffs estimation, if the jury concluded she would soon die but her cancer did not recur. On the other hand, if the jury rejected the statistical probabilities put forth by plaintiffs experts and accepted the statistical probabilities put forth by defendant’s experts that Ms. Moattar had turned the corner and did not face an early death, she would be forever barred from seeking compensation even if her cancer in fact recurred and she succumbed.
This may not seem at all novel. Juries are routinely asked to decide questions of great uncertainty. Here, however, considerations in addition to the closeness of the survival question and the high stakes involved pointed to taking a different approach. Preeminent among these was the certainty that within just a few years much better information would be available. All of the experts agreed that in less than two years, at the five year marker, the statistical information as to Ms. Moattar’s probabilities of survival would be much more definite. A decision down the line, then would be much more rationally based.
Additionally, in a very real sense, compensation at this time for Ms. Moattar’s future wage loss was not necessary to provide her with a fair redress for her injuries. True enough, every time a jury compensates a plaintiff for future losses the plaintiff is being given an advance payment. But here, not only would the payment be made in advance, but, in a way, payment would be made to the wrong beneficiary. Ms. Moattar’s future wage loss claim was premised not on a lengthy disability for which she would need substantial income, but on loss of income from death itself. The beneficiary of that claim would be her estate, not Ms. Moattar.
It also bears emphasis that given the nature of the medical malpractice claim in this case — that Dr. DeRosa allowed a cancer to develop necessitating the removal of Ms. Moattar’s breast — there was a real likelihood of an emotionally laden jury decision despite the court’s usual instructions to the contrary. All of these factors coun*444seled against deciding the future wage loss claim at this time.
‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡
There are, of course, considerations that favored hearing and deciding the future wage loss claim at this juncture. As a general matter, plaintiffs choice of when to bring a lawsuit should be respected. This is especially so considering the anguish Ms. Moattar must feel in reliving the pain of what is no doubt the most devastating experience of her life. A court should have considerable hesitation in upsetting her choice of when to tell that sad story. But, if her cancer recurs, her burden would be the cancer, not a legal proceeding for which she may well be too ill to testify. Additionally, while plaintiffs counsel argued that deferring the future wage loss claim would deprive plaintiff of her best witness, Ms. Moattar is the best witness on that issue only in the most sympathetically irrelevant sense. The future wage loss of a professional woman who works for the federal government does not demand her testimony.
Id. at 1986-87.
Rule 42(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the trial court “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim ... or of any separate issue....” Pursuant to this provision the trial court ordered a separate trial on the claim for post-death economic damages to be conducted when, and if, such damages either became a reality, or the likelihood that such damages will occur is less speculative than they were at the time the trial court ruled. Although this court has never addressed the standard of review applicable to trial court rulings under Super. Ct. Civ. R. (42)(b), the federal courts all agree that review is for abuse of discretion. As one court has said: “Rule 42(b) is sweeping in its terms and allows the court, in its discretion, to grant a separate trial of any kind of issue in any kind of case.” In re Bendectin Litigation, 857 F.2d 290, 308 (6th Cir.1988) (quotations omitted); United States v. 1,071.08 Acres of Land, 564 F.2d 1350, 1352 (9th Cir.1977). The majority concludes that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the separate trial. In doing so it principally relies upon three cases that are readily distinguishable.
For example, the majority relies upon language found in District of Columbia v. Barriteau, 399 A.2d 563 (D.C.1979), where the court stated that “future loss of earnings resulting from injuries due to the negligence of others is a cognizable element of damages during the life of the injured party.” Ante at 438. Reliance on that language is problematic for two reasons. First, the Barriteau court was speaking about pre-death, not post-death, economic damages.5 In addition, there was no doubt whatever that there would be a future loss of earnings during Barriteau’s lifetime, because she was unable to continue working as a nursing assistant as a result of the conceded negligence of the defendants. Under those circumstances, Barriteau was entitled to recover for future earnings which she would lose during her working life because of the defendants’ negligence. In contrast, Ms. Moattar has worked continuously since 1990 and the only economic damages she now seeks, beyond what the jury awarded in past damages, are lost wages that would occur after her death should the cancer recur.
The majority also relies upon two other cases where the court allowed the plaintiff to recover for post-death economic losses over defense objection that awarding such damages was premature. Monias v. Endal, 330 Md. 274, 623 A.2d 656 (1993); Burke v. United States, 605 F.Supp. 981 (D.Md.1985). *445Both cases, like Ms. Moattar’s, involved a misdiagnosis of cancer, followed by surgeiy, treatment, and the filing of an action seeking damages for both past and future losses. In both of the other cases, however, the evidence concerning the likelihood of recurrence of the cancer was considerably more pessimistic than is so here. In Monias, the undisputed testimony was that the patient had only a twenty percent chance of survival beyond a date approximately five years after she was treated. 623 A.2d at 657. In Burke, the prognosis was even bleaker: it was undisputed that there was an 80-85% chance of recurrence within five years and only a 10% chance of survival for ten years. 605 F.Supp. at 987.
In contrast, Ms. Moattar’s experts could only say that it was more likely than not that her cancer would recur within four years after she was treated, while the defense experts were of the view that it was more likely that there would be no recurrence.6 That testimony was given in May 1994, approximately three and a half years after the cancer went into remission. As the trial court observed: “All of the experts agreed that in less than two years, at the five-year marker, the statistical information as to Ms. Moat-tar’s probability of survival would be more definite.” Moattar, swpra, at 1986. During the pendency of this appeal that five-year milestone has come and gone. Although we do not know what Ms. Moattar’s condition is today — six and one-half years after she was treated — we would expect, because her future prospects played a decisive role in the trial court’s decision to delay, that any change would have been brought to the attention of both this court and the trial court. In any event, the chance of recurrence, when the trial court ruled, was very much in doubt and certainly not so likely as it was in the two cases relied upon by the majority.
In the face of this uncertainty regarding the likelihood of recurrence, the trial court was properly concerned that deciding post-death economic losses would be too speculative an undertaking at that time. Delaying the decision was deemed to be the most prudent course and the one chosen by the trial court. Under all the circumstances, I cannot say that determination was an abuse of discretion, especially where the discretion given the trial court in making that determination was pursuant to Rule 42(b) which is “sweeping in its terms.” Bendectin Litigation, supra, 857 F.2d at 308.
II.
Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in severing the claim for post-death damages does not end the analysis of the propriety of the trial court’s decision to delay resolution of that issue. In my view, for the reason discussed below, the trial court should have taken at least one additional step.
The drawback to the trial court’s resolution of this issue is that it prevents the plaintiff from collecting any judgment for past damages until the severed claim is itself finally resolved. To illustrate the collection problem facing Ms. Moattar, assume, after a severance of the future damages claim like the one ordered here, that the jury reaches a verdict based upon past damages that is satisfactory to the plaintiff, and that the trial court has disposed of any defense post-verdict motions in the plaintiffs favor. Also assume that the defense wishes to pursue an appeal. If the severed claim did not exist, judgment would be entered, an appeal would be filed, and execution of judgment would undoubtedly be stayed conditioned upon the filing of an appropriate bond. See Super. Ct. Civ. R. 58, 62, 62-I; D.C.App. R. 4, 8; see, for example, Pierola v. Moschonas, 687 A.2d 942, 945 n. 2 (D.C.1997) (“where appeal is taken from a money judgment, the appellant may obtain a stay of proceedings to enforce judgment by posting a supersedeas bond”); cf Lomax v. Spriggs, 404 A.2d 943 (D.C.1979); Triton Plaza Co. v. Allstate Leasing Corp., 399 A.2d 34 (D.C.1979), District of Columbia v. Tschudin, 390 A.2d 986 (D.C.1978). In due course, the appeal would *446be decided and if the plaintiff prevailed, collection efforts on the judgment could begin.
If, however, the severed claim is left unresolved, there is no final judgment to be appealed. D.C.Code § 11-721 (1995 Repl.); In re Estate of Chuong, 623 A.2d 1154, 1157 (D.C.1993) (en banc); McDiarmid v. McDiarmid, 594 A.2d 79, 81 (D.C.1991); Dyhouse v. Baylor, 455 A.2d 900, 901 (D.C.1983). But until this court has reviewed and affirmed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff when the defense seeks our review, there can be no execution of any “judgment” received. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 681 A.2d 1098, 1100 (D.C.1996) (plaintiff cannot obtain execution on a judgment until after this court has affirmed the judgment in its favor), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1083, 137 L.Ed.2d 217 (1997); Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Oxendine, 593 A.2d 1023, 1026-28 (D.C.1991); cf. Robinson v. Sarisky, 535 A.2d 901, 908 (D.C.1988). Therefore, because the final judgment rule bars an appeal,7 and execution on the judgment depends upon the plaintiffs success on appeal, the plaintiff would be left with an uncollectible “judgment” because of the delay in resolving the severed claim — a delay granted at the behest of the defense over plaintiffs objection.
In order to avoid these hurdles, the plaintiff could dismiss the severed claim in order to effect a final judgment, but that course is unacceptable because under Colbert, a plaintiff could be barred from re-bringing that claim if the cancer recurred, by a plea of the statute of limitation. Plaintiff should not be forced to forego recovery of possible future losses in order to collect what she may be entitled to receive in the form of damages suffered in the past. Alternatively, the plaintiff could wait until the future loss claim is resolved, thereby giving her a final judgment. The wait, caused entirely by the defense’s insistence that the future loss claim be delayed until it is ripe, could well be a long one, however. From the plaintiffs point of view, that solution is also unsatisfactory. A way of avoiding the undesirable courses of action presented by severance, would be to condition the grant of the defense request for delayed resolution of the future damages claim upon defense agreement to allow the plaintiff to split her claim. Cf Colbert, supra, 641 A.2d at 475.
In GilLes v. Ware, 615 A.2d 533, 535, 545, 549-50 (D.C.1992) (per curiam), we adopted Restatement (Second) Of Judgments Sec. 26(1)(A) (1982) which permits claim-splitting when the parties agree or when the defendant has acquiesced. See also Ifill v. District of Columbia, 665 A.2d 185, 193 (D.C.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1570, 134 L.Ed.2d 669 (1996). The defense is free to acquiesce or not, but I see no reason why, in the exercise of its discretion pursuant to Rule 42(b), the trial court could not condition the grant of a severance upon the defense’s agreement to allow the claims to be split. If the defense agrees, the future damages claim can be severed, and dismissed without prejudice accompanied by a waiver of any statute of limitations claim.8 If the cancer recurred, the plaintiff could simply move to vacate the dismissal and the future damages issue could then be resolved without the fear of a statute of limitations challenge.
*447In another context, we routinely impose such a requirement. For example, any grant of a defense motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds must be accompanied by a defense waiver of the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Rose, 583 A.2d 156 (D.C.1990); Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 511 A.2d 8, 14 (D.C.1986). We require such a waiver, in part, because the defense should not be permitted to profit from the delays attendant to resolution of the forum non conveniens issue. Similarly in the circumstances presented here, if the defense wishes to delay resolution of the future economic loss claim, it should not be permitted to gain an advantage by preventing the plaintiff from timely collecting on its verdict for the past damages.
In this ease the trial court did explore the possibility that the defense waive the statute of limitations. Although the defense initially expressed uncertainty, it ultimately declined to do so. The defense was under no obligation to waive, but under the circumstances, the trial court, in my view, for the reasons discussed above, should have refused to sever the claim unless there was a waiver. Although, as I have said above, I am satisfied that the trial court’s decision to sever the future damages claim was not, standing alone, an abuse of discretion, the trial court should have conditioned9 that grant upon a waiver of the statute of limitations.10 For that reason I concur in the result reached by the majority.

. While I am satisfied that the trial court did not abuse discretion when it concluded that the issue was not then ripe for decision, I agree with the majority that that decision cannot be grounded in the so-called "ripeness doctrine," as described in Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Ante at 440.

. This case is before us based upon a certification by the trial court, pursuant to D.C.Code § 11 — 721(d) (1995 Repl.), of this and a second issue relating to annuitizing future noneconomic damages. We granted review only on the issue of future economic damages.

. At the time of trial Ms. Moattar’s annual salary was approximately $40,000, thus her gross eam-ings for eight weeks would be just over $6,000.

. Compare George Washington Univ. v. Waas, 648 A.2d 178, 182 n. 7 (D.C.1994) (determining post-death economic loss where subject was still alive) with Runyon v. District of Columbia, 150 U.S.App. D.C. 228, 231, 463 F.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C.Cir.1972) (same determination; but damages awarded after death of the subject under survival statute).

. Damages awarded under each, of these circumstances serve different purposes and are measured differently. Pre-death economic damages serve as a substitute for after-tax income that will be lost because of the plaintiff's injuries, and are calculated by determining work-life lost income and subtracting a sum for federal and local income taxes. National Health Lab. v. Ahmadi, 596 A.2d 555, 560 n. 14 (D.C.1991). Post-death economic damages represent the sum that would accrue to the estate. Because the deceased has no living expenses, that factor, along with income taxes, must be subtracted from the income determined to be lost. George Washington Univ. v. Waas, supra note 4, 648 A.2d at 182 n. 7.

. In George Washington Univ. v. Waas, supra note 5, damages for post-death economic loss were awarded where the likelihood of recurrence of the cancer was less than the likelihood of recurrence here. That case, however, did not present the issue whether the determination of such damages could have, or should have, been postponed.

. It is doubtful that a certified appeal, which is the jurisdictional basis for the instant appeal, would be available because of the unlikelihood that any action by the trial court, in the course of trial on the issue of past damages, would include a ruling that "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion [justifying] ... an immediate appeal ..." as required by the governing statute. See D.C.Code § 11 — 721 (b) (1995 Repl.). Moreover, it is far from clear that the trial court could properly enter “final judgment” on the past damages claim pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(b), because there is a significant question whether that claim would be sufficiently "separable” from the severed claim or that this court would permit an appeal on that basis. See Peo-pies v. Warfield and Sanford, 660 A.2d 397, 401-02 (D.C.1995) (because a Rule 54(b) certification confers subject matter jurisdiction upon this court, we must be satisfied of the propriety of a certification). In any event, and to avoid the uncertainty of whether an appeal would lie under either of these two procedures, the course of action suggested in the text will ensure an ap-pealable final order.

. Such a waiver would not necessarily have to be open ended. For example, waiver of the statute of limitations could be conditioned upon the plaintiff moving to vacate the dismissal within some specified time after the discovery that there has been a recurrence.

. I note that the plaintiff never sought such a condition; therefore, the trial court had no reason to impose it.

. In some circumstances it might also be appropriate for the court to condition severance upon the posting of a bond with sufficient sureties.