Marco Gonzalez v. Salem Shahin, No. 22-2012 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff was prescribed an antibiotic and suffered serious adverse effects. He sued the healthcare providers and hospitals that were involved in his treatment for medical negligence, and a jury found in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, challenging the district court’s comments to the jury and its evidentiary rulings. The district court denied the motion, and then awarded costs to the defendants as the prevailing parties. Plaintiff appealed the judgment entered pursuant to the jury’s verdict, the denial of his new-trial motion, and the award of costs. Plaintiff contends that the district court improperly denied his motion for a new trial. He maintains that the district court (1) made improper comments about the Bactrim label and about his lawyer; and (2) erroneously limited his cross-examination of Dr. Leingang.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court held that it acknowledges Plaintiff’s concerns—the district court’s supplemental comments were ill-advised. Nevertheless, the district court emphasized that it was the jury’s choice to determine the “measure of weight” and the importance of the label. And the court instructed the jury that manufacturer information was “competent evidence” to consider “in determining whether each medical professional met the standard of care in this case.” On the whole, it was made clear to the jury that all factual questions—including the import of the Bactrim label to Plaintiff’s case—were to be resolved by them. The court concluded, after considering “the complete charge to the jury,” that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. Plaintiff alleged the defendant physicians and medical providers were negligent in treating him with Bactrim, an antibiotic, and in failing to discontinue the drug without consulting the product label. The jury returned a verdict for all defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Held: This court lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment on the jury verdict because the notice of appeal was untimely; the court does have jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 59 motion for a new trial; the district court's supplemental comments to the jury concerning the product label, when read in connection with the instructions and other comments from the court, left all fact issues to the jury and were not an abuse of the district court's discretion; the court's comments about plaintiff's lawyer were not plain error; the district court's limits on plaintiff's cross-examination of a medical expert were not an abuse of the district court's discretion; the trial court's denial of additional time for cross-examination of the witness was not plain error; award of costs in connection with depositions was not an abuse of the district court's discretion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.