Med Mal Action Reinstated by SD Supreme Court

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Plaintiffs’ malpractice action reinstated, Summary follows: WALTON v. HURON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, 2026 S.D. 3: This is a medical malpractice action filed against a Doctor and also Huron Regional Medical Center. The patient, having been previously diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, filed this action claiming that he “suffered a hypoxic brain injury from the administration of high dosages of opiates and the failure to properly monitor him while being treated for testicular pain.” His wife joined as co-plaintiff. Plaintiffs relied on a report. Plaintiff relied on the proposed testimony of Dr. Adler, serving as a “causation expert.” The trial court granted Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Adler and then granted Defendants Summary Judgment. The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding as follows: [¶52.] [T]he circuit court abused its discretion in excluding his opinions. In particular, the court failed to apply the Daubert reliability standards to the differential diagnosis methodology, including all of the information and data relied upon by Dr. Adler, to arrive at his opinions. “When a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61, ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d at 415 (citation omitted). We reverse the circuit court’s decision excluding Dr. Adler’s opinions and testimony, including the qEEG evidence. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Prenuptial Agreement Upheld

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Prenuptial Agreement Upheld, Summary follows: ESTATE OF WEBB, 2026 S.D. 2: At the ages of 57 and 29, prospective H & W executed a prenuptial agreement, “after dating for nearly a year.” In the agreement, “[W] waived right to claim any share of [H's] estate after his death.” The marriage was conducted at an attorney’s office in Faith, SD, in the aftermath of the Atlas Blizzard on October 11, 2013. The prenuptial agreement was signed shortly before the civil ceremony. Upon H’s death 8 years later, W sought an elective share of his estate and also a family allowance. The trial court granted W a family allowance but denied her request for an elective share, upholding the prenuptial agreement. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. The Court’s opinion is authored by Retired Justice Kern. Justice Salter filed a brief opinion, concurring in result but also dissenting in part. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Improper use of Collateral Estoppel warrants reversal and new trial

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Improper use of Collateral Estoppel warrants reversal and new trial, Summary follows: ESTATE OF O'NEILL, 2026 S.D. 1: Son sought probate of his mother’s last Will which gave him the entire estate, to the exclusion of his siblings. Siblings alleged “undue influence.” The trial court relied upon findings in a civil dispute between Son and a brother, for the purpose of narrowing the jury’s consideration of the issues, resulting in an adverse verdict for Son. Son appeals. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating: [¶42.] The circuit court erred in wholesale admitting findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding issues that were not identical to issues in the resent case and not necessary or essential to the prior judgment. By then instructing the jury that all of the findings—including credibility determinations and specific statements that Tony had been dishonest with Rick and the court—and instructing the jury to consider those findings and conclusions as established, the court effectively foreclosed the jury’s ability to undertake its own independent assessment of the witnesses’ credibility on the issues more closely connected to the Respondents’ undue influence claim. We reverse and remand for a new trial. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. This scholarly opinion presents a thorough discussion of the doctrine of “Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion,” as it has evolved in South Dakota. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .