REVIEW OF JURY VERDICT AND DAMAGES

Poliner v. Tex. Health Sys., No. 3:00-CV-1007-P (N.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2006)

A physician and a hospital sought review of a jury verdict in which $360,000,000 in damages was assessed. Actual economic damages sustained by the cardiologist who brought the action amounted to approximately $10,000. The additional damages were non-economic and punitive in nature, relating to mental anguish and injury to career and reputation. The defendants moved for a new trial, or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of damages.

The federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that a new trial should only be ordered when the jury's damage award was "infected by passion or prejudice," otherwise a reduction is appropriate. The court determined that the jury's decision was a product of reason, notwithstanding the emotional testimony of the cardiologist and his witnesses. As such, the court, on its own accord, determined the amount of damages that should reasonably have been awarded. The court concluded that the physician and hospital defendants were responsible for $12,000,000 and $9,000,000 for injury to reputation and mental anguish, respectively. It held that the maximum recovery shown by the evidence against the defendants was $21,000,000 in non-economic actual damages, $7,894.92 in lost earnings, and $1,542,106 in punitive damages. The motion for a new trial having been denied, the court gave the cardiologist ten days to accept the reduction in damages. Upon the cardiologist's refusal to accept the reduced award, the court held that a new trial limited to the issue of damages would proceed.