Links to case summaries:

Swift adv. Donato

Hacienda, Inc., adv. Tan

Zurich American Insurance Company adv. Jim Cano

Jury Trial Overview, 2006-Present

This was a wrongful death case. In addition to alleging medical malpractice, Plaintiff alleged negligent training and supervision, and negligence per se for a claimed violation of the Arizona Administrative Code. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages.

The decedent, a 20-month-old boy, was born prematurely and placed on a ventilator, then underwent tracheostomy surgery. He was breathing through a tracheostomy tube at the time of his death. A respiratory technician at Hacienda (Defendant), working under a temporary license, was performing a scheduled replacement of the velcro ties that secured decedent’s tracheostomy tube when the tube came out. Despite quick reinsertion of the tube, the decedent went into pulmonary hypertensive crisis and died.

Plaintiff Tan specifically alleged that Hacienda was negligent for not properly training or supervising a respiratory therapist who had a temporary license. She alleged that this lack of supervision violated the Arizona Administrative Code. She further alleged that the respiratory therapist was negligent for not following the proper procedure for performing a trach tie change. She also alleged that Hacienda’s records were falsified to cover up the negligence of the respiratory therapist. Defendant argued that both the respiratory therapist and Hacienda met the standard of care and that a subclinical condition suffered by the decedent, which would not have been known to Defendant, was the true cause of his death. Further, because of the subclinical condition, the likelihood of his death was imminent. Plaintiff asked for $6 million dollars at trial. After a ten-day trial, the jury found for Defendant.

Plaintiff Cano alleged that Zurich acted in bad faith when it denied his worker's compensation claim. He alleged that, by not accepting the claim, Zurich caused a delay in medical treatment, which left him totally and permanently disabled. The Zurich adjuster who denied the claim subsequently left Zurich's employment and was less than cooperative in preparing for trial. She testified that her only investigation of the claim prior to denial was some brief telephone conversations with Plaintiff's employer on the day of the injury. The substance of those communications was disputed by the employer. Additionally, Zurich's expert found that some of the bases given by the claim adjuster for denial of the claim were not valid. The adjuster later accepted the claim after Plaintiff contested the denial, but Plaintiff alleged that he was still denied and delayed treatment after the claim was accepted. Plaintiff sued for bad faith emotional distress damages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Plaintiff's pre-trial demand was $2.9 million and was never reduced. After a two-and-one-half week trial, the jury deliberated for six hours and found for Plaintiff in the amount of $275,000 as compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages.