Schopp v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.

Citations: 739 So. 2d 338; 98 La.App. 1 Cir. 1382; 1999 La. App. LEXIS 2140; 1999 WL 486667Docket: No. 98 CA 1382

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 25, 1999; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sophie D. Schopp fell at home on August 2, 1993, and was subsequently treated at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital (OLOL), where she underwent a craniotomy for a subdural hematoma, ultimately dying fourteen days later. Her sons, Daniel C. Schopp and Norbert Richard Schopp, filed a lawsuit against OLOL and x-ray technologists Darren M. Coates and Sharon Sue Smith, alleging their negligence caused her death after an x-ray cassette fell on her head during a procedure. The plaintiffs later dismissed Coates and Smith but proceeded with a jury trial against OLOL. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for pain, suffering, medical expenses, and funeral costs, alongside $50,000 each for general damages to the sons. The trial court upheld this verdict, and OLOL appealed the liability decision, while the plaintiffs sought an increase in general damages for wrongful death.

Factual details reveal that Schopp, 75 and suffering from arthritis, fell at home around 3:30 a.m. and remained on the floor until a home health aide arrived at 8:00 a.m. After being taken to OLOL, she underwent skull x-rays. During the procedure, Coates testified that while adjusting equipment, the x-ray cassette tipped and "barely tapped" her head. He inquired if she was okay, to which she responded uncertainly. Although Coates claimed the incident was minor, Schopp's friend observed a blue mark on her forehead, indicating a potential injury. Coates later informed Schopp's family about the incident, suggesting they notify the doctor if she experienced any pain.

Smith did not witness the cassette fall but saw it resting against Schopp’s head after Coates aligned Schopp’s position. Concerned for Schopp’s wellbeing, Smith inquired if she was okay, to which Schopp initially responded that she did not know. Dr. Joseph M. Allain, the emergency room physician on duty when Schopp arrived at OLOL, noted her alertness but significant pain, especially from a bruise on her left elbow and around her right eye. He ordered x-rays, which were negative, but after consulting with Schopp’s long-time internist, Dr. Jed Morris, he admitted her for overnight observation due to ongoing concerns.

Later, a frightened x-ray technologist informed Allain that an x-ray plate had fallen on Schopp’s face, leading to a panic call from a nurse indicating Schopp had a cranium injury and severe headache. Morris ordered a CT scan, which revealed a large acute subdural hematoma. Upon visiting Schopp, he observed a significant change in her condition, including swelling where she indicated she was struck. Despite initial improvement post-surgery to evacuate the hematoma, Schopp’s health deteriorated, resulting in her death on August 16, 1998.

The defendant argues the trial court erred in attributing Schopp’s condition to OLOL's negligence, claiming testimonies from Smith and Coates suggest the cassette only lightly touched her head, thus could not have caused the hematoma. In contrast, plaintiffs cite the nurse’s account, Smith’s comments to Allain, and Schopp’s direct statement to Morris regarding the cassette being dropped on her head as evidence of causation.

Defendant argues that Perone’s operative note, which indicates no bruise on Schopp’s head, suggests that any potential impact from a dropped cartridge was insufficient to cause a hematoma. However, this is contradicted by witness testimonies from Guwang, who observed a blue mark on Schopp’s head, and Morris, who noted swelling in the area of impact. The defendant claims that its experts’ testimonies were more credible than Morris’s. Perone opines that Schopp’s subdural hematoma resulted from a fall at home, explaining the common occurrence of contrecoup injuries in the elderly. He believes that even a dropped cartridge could not have caused the hematoma unless it fell from a height greater than the ceiling, while the incident was reported as a drop of only two millimeters. 

To counter potential bias due to Perone's position as chief of staff, the defendant presented video testimony from Dr. Jack A. Hurst, a neurosurgeon, who also attributed the hematoma to Schopp’s fall. Hurst asserts that a significant height is necessary for a dropped cartridge to cause such an injury and expresses skepticism regarding Morris’s account, citing Morris’s prior description of Schopp as lethargic and delirious. Hurst questions Morris’s qualifications, emphasizing his own extensive experience with subdural hematomas. 

In contrast, Morris passionately defends his expertise, asserting that he diagnosed the hematoma and is convinced that the x-ray incident caused it. He highlights the visible swelling and the alignment of the hematoma with where Schopp indicated the cartridge struck her, framing the situation as a clear cause-and-effect relationship.

Appellate review of factual findings employs a two-part test: first, the appellate court must confirm a reasonable factual basis for the trial court's findings; second, it must assess whether those findings are not clearly wrong (manifestly erroneous). Reversal of factual findings on appeal is limited to cases of manifest error. In instances where two plausible interpretations of evidence exist, the fact finder’s decision between them cannot be deemed manifestly erroneous. In this case, the jury accepted the more severe account of an incident involving an x-ray cartridge, which they determined caused a soft-tissue injury, favoring the opinion of a witness over others that suggested minimal impact. 

Additionally, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aggravation of a pre-existing condition, a charge the judge intended to omit. However, because the case was presented as an either/or scenario regarding the cause of the hematoma, this error was deemed harmless. 

Regarding damages, the plaintiffs contended that the $50,000 award for general damages was inadequate. The plaintiffs, Dan and Richard Schopp, described their close relationships with their mother, expressing the emotional loss they felt. Despite acknowledging that the award was low, the court found it not abusively so. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc., at the defendant's costs. The court also noted that it did not need to address the defendant’s additional complaints regarding the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion for a new trial.