▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court reversed the trial judge's decision. It found the jury's verdict was reasonable. An expert witness for the plaintiff testified that the suicide was preventable, and that an emergency room referral could have led to hospital admission. The court said this testimony was enough for a reasonable person to conclude Dr. Strange's actions more likely than not reduced Richard's chance of a better outcome. The original jury verdict on causation was reinstated. The case was sent back to the trial court to decide other pending issues, including standard of care and damages.
Charlene Shouldis sued Dr. Theodore Strange after her husband Richard died by suicide. Dr. Strange had treated Richard in the weeks before his death, including an office visit just hours before he died. At trial, a jury decided Dr. Strange failed to meet the standard of care by not sending Richard to the emergency room the day before his death. The jury found this failure was a substantial factor in causing his death and awarded damages of about ten million dollars. But Dr. Strange asked the trial judge to set aside the verdict, arguing the evidence did not show his actions actually caused the death.
The trial judge agreed with Dr. Strange and dismissed the case, ruling there was no proof his conduct caused the death. Charlene Shouldis appealed. The question for the appeals court was whether the jury had enough evidence to reasonably conclude that Dr. Strange's failure to act was a proximate cause, meaning a real and substantial factor, in Richard's death.
This case shows how New York courts review a jury's causation findings in medical malpractice cases. It highlights that expert testimony about lost chances of survival or better outcomes can support a jury's verdict, even in cases involving suicide. Judges cannot easily overturn a jury decision if the evidence reasonably supports it.
Talk to a licensed medical malpractice lawyer in New York.