35.20 [1998 New] Illustrations(Medical Malpractice(Minor Injured(Derivative Claim(No Comparative Fault

Instruction No 1 35.20 [1998 New] IllustrationsCMedical InjuredCDerivative ClaimCNo Comparative Fault MalpracticeCMinor Megan Smith, a minor, sustained permanent injury during an operative procedure for which anesthetic was administered by Horace Jones, MD. It is alleged that defendant failed to adequately monitor vital signs and administered excessive anesthetic during surgery. In addition to the minor's claim for personal injury, John and Julie Smith, her parents, have joined the action with their derivative parental claim but have allowed their daughter to recover past and future medical expense in her claim. Instruction Number 1 (Same as MAI 2.01) Instruction Number 2 (See MAI 2.03 (1980 New)) As you remember, the court gave you a general instruction before the presentation of any evidence in this case. The court will not repeat that instruction at this time. However, that instruction and the additional instructions, to be given to you now, constitute the law of this case and each such instruction is equally binding upon you. You should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with the other instructions, and you should apply the instructions as a whole to the evidence. The order in which the instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance. All of the instructions are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. Instruction Number 3 (See MAI 3.01 (1998 Revision)) In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether or not you believe certain propositions of fact submitted to you. The burden is upon the party who relies upon any such proposition to cause you to believe that such proposition is more likely to be true than not true. In determining whether or not you believe any proposition, you must consider only the evidence and the reasonable inference derived from the evidence. If the evidence in the case does not cause you to believe a particular proposition submitted, then you cannot return a verdict requiring belief of that proposition. Instruction Number 4 (See MAI 2.02 (1980 Revision)) In returning your verdict you will form beliefs as to the facts. The court does not mean to assume as true any fact referred to in these instructions but leaves it to you to determine what the facts are. Instruction Number 5 (See MAI 2.04 (1981 Revision)) The verdict form included in these instructions contains directions for completion and will allow you to return the permissible verdict in this case. Nine or more of you must agree in order to return any verdict. A verdict must be signed by each juror who agrees to it. Instruction Number 6 (See MAI 11.06 (1990 Revision)) The term "negligent" or "negligence" as used in these instructions means the failure to use that degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by the members of defendant's profession. Instruction Number 7 (See MAI 21.01 (1988 Revision), MAI 19.01 (1986 Revision)) Your verdict must be for plaintiff Megan Smith and against defendant Jones if you believe: First, defendant Horace Jones, MD, either: Second, Defendant, in any one or more of the respects submitted in paragraph First, was thereby negligent, and Third, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to Megan Smith. Instruction Number 8 (Converse Omitted) Instruction Number 9 (See MAI 31.04 (1991 Revision)) If you find in favor of plaintiff Megan Smith on her claim for personal injuries, and if you believe that plaintiffs John and Julie Smith sustained damage as a direct result of injury to their child, then in your verdict you must find that plaintiffs John and Julie Smith did sustain such damage. Instruction Number 10 (Converse Omitted) Instruction Number 11 (See MAI 21.03 (1988 New), MAI 21.07 (1991 New), MAI 4.18 (1991 New)) If you find in favor of plaintiff Megan Smith, then you must award her such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate her for any damages you believe she sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future that the occurrence mentioned in the evidence directly caused or directly contributed to cause. If you further find that plaintiffs John and Julie Smith did sustain damage as a direct result of injury to their child, Megan Smith, you must award plaintiffs John and Julie Smith such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate them for any damages due to injury to their child which you believe they sustained and are reasonably certain to sustain in the future that the occurrence mentioned in the evidence directly caused or directly contributed to cause. Any damages you award must be itemized by the categories set forth in the verdict form on each claim. Instruction Number 12 (See MAI 21.05 (1988 New)) In these instructions, you are told to itemize any damages you award by the categories set forth in the verdict form. The phrase "past economic damages" means those damages incurred in the past for pecuniary harm such as medical expenses for necessary drugs, therapy, and for medical, surgical, nursing, X-ray, dental, custodial, and other health and rehabilitative services and for past lost earnings and for past lost earning capacity. The phrase "past non-economic damages" means those damages incurred in the past from non-pecuniary harm such as pain, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of capacity to enjoy life. The phrase "future medical damages" means those damages arising in the future for medical expenses such as necessary drugs, therapy, and medical, surgical, nursing, X-ray, dental, custodial, and other health and rehabilitative services. The phrase "future economic damages" means those damages arising in the future from pecuniary harm such as lost earnings and lost earning capacity. The phrase "future non-economic damages" means those damages arising in the future from non-pecuniary harms such as pain, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and loss of capacity to enjoy life. Verdict (See MAI 36.20 (1988 New), MAI 36.23 (1991 New)) Note: Complete this form by writing in the names required by your verdict. On the claim of plaintiff Megan Smith for personal injuries against defendant Horace Jones, MD, we, the undersigned jurors find in favor of: (Plaintiff Megan Smith) or (Defendant Horace Jones, MD) Note: Complete the following only if the above finding is in favor of plaintiff Megan Smith.