Thapa v. St. Cloud Orthopedic Associates, Ltd.

Background

Anuj Thapa fractured his left tibia and fibula while playing soccer in January 2017. After surgery and discharge, he returned to the hospital six days later with pain and was diagnosed with acute compartment syndrome. The opinion states that he later underwent about a dozen surgeries, spent 54 days in the hospital, walked with a limp, and continued to experience left-leg pain.

Thapa sued St. Cloud Orthopedic Associates, Ltd. for medical malpractice. A jury found the defendant negligent and awarded $10 million in past non-economic damages, $100 million in future non-economic damages, $493,073.22 in past medical expenses, and $758,486 in future medical expenses, for a total of $111,251,559.22.

Defendant’s Motion

The defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) for a new trial, or alternatively for remittitur. Remittitur is a court-ordered reduction of a jury award, generally offered with the plaintiff’s choice of accepting the reduced amount or undergoing a new trial on the affected issue.

The defendant argued that the court made five evidentiary errors, including admitting testimony from Dr. Robert Quinn and Dr. Sarah Anderson, excluding evidence of Thapa’s spinal stroke, allowing testimony about Thapa’s goal of becoming a mechanical engineer, and allowing questioning of defense expert Dr. Edward Szalapski about income from expert work. The court rejected these arguments. It found no prejudicial error and concluded that any alleged evidentiary errors did not substantially influence the verdict.

The defendant also argued that Thapa’s counsel committed misconduct during closing argument by referring to Dr. Szalapski’s income, discussing matters allegedly unsupported by trial evidence, and encouraging the jury to use speculation or a damages multiplier. The court concluded that the challenged remarks were not plainly unwarranted or clearly injurious. It also found that the remarks were brief, were supported by evidence or reasonable inferences where applicable, and did not warrant a new trial.

Damages Analysis

The court rejected the defendant’s request for a new trial on liability and damages based on passion and prejudice. It stated that the unusually large award alone did not show that the jury’s liability findings were improperly motivated.

The court separately found the $110 million non-economic damages award shockingly excessive. It considered Thapa’s surgeries, scarring, limp, pain, mobility and balance problems, inability to run or play sports, and inability to hike or hunt. The court also considered that he could walk, care for his daily needs, was not confined to a wheelchair, did not require round-the-clock supervision, retained basic cognitive functions, and graduated from college.

The court compared the award with verdicts in other compartment-syndrome medical-malpractice cases involving serious permanent orthopedic injuries and non-economic damages. It concluded that $10 million was the maximum amount the jury could reasonably have awarded for non-economic damages. The court did not disturb the $1,251,559.22 economic-damages award.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s Motion for New Trial, or Alternatively, Remittitur. It conditionally granted a new trial limited to non-economic damages and required Thapa to state by November 28, 2023, whether he would accept reducing those damages from $110 million to $10 million. If he accepted, the total award would be $11,251,559.22. If he declined, the court would schedule a new trial on non-economic damages. The motion was denied in all other respects.

The court also directed the parties to meet and confer about Thapa’s motion to amend the judgment to include interest and the defendant’s motion concerning collateral-source reductions or offsets. The order did not decide those issues; it set procedures and deadlines for further submissions if the parties could not agree.