Dawn M. obo J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton

Case Number(s)
S-24-0205
Call Date
Case Time
Court Number
Douglas
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-24-0205 J.R.M.B. by and through Dawn M. Morgan-Baker, his natural guardian and next friend (Appellant) v.  Alegent Creighton Health Creighton University Medical Center, LLC, d/b/a CHI Health Creighton University Medical Center, and d/b/a CHI Health Creighton University Medical Center—Bergan Mercy, and d/b/a Alegent Creighton Health Bergan Mercy Medical Center; Alegent Creighton Clinic, d/b/a CHI Health Alegent Creighton Clinic and d/b/a CHI Health Clinic; Peggy H. Jones, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. (Appellees)

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Leigh A. Retelsdorf

Attorneys:  Joseph P. Cullan, Patrick J. Cullan, and Joseph S. Fox (Cullan & Cullan L.L.C. for Appellant) and Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, Patrick G. Vipond, and Michael L. Storey (Lamson Dugan & Murray LLP for Appellee)

Civil:  Medical malpractice

Proceedings below: Appellant brought a medical malpractice action alleging improper administration of Pitocin®. At trial, the district court prohibited Appellant from presenting evidence from the FDA Pitocin® package insert. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees.  On its own motion, the Court ordered that this case be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.

Issues:  Appellant assigns the following errors:  1) The trial court erred in when it failed to allow the FDA Pitocin® package insert into evidence or allow discussion of the contents of the FDA Pitocin® package insert on direct examination of Fred J. Duboe, M.D. and during cross-examination of William Kuyper, M.D.; 2) The trial court erred in when it failed to give certain jury instructions on the following: a) Proximate cause and concurrent cause; b) The effects of the allocation of negligence; and c) Actions of a parent may not be imputed to a child; and 3) The trial court erred in when it gave certain improper, erroneous and confusing jury instructions with respect to the following: a) Erroneous jury instruction No. 10—the statutory definition of malpractice/professional negligence; b) Erroneous jury instruction No. 5—a health care professional’s duty to a patient (NJI2d Civ. 12.01); and c) The giving of both jury instruction No. 5 and jury instruction No. 10.

Schedule Code
SC