A jury’s award of $45 million against Temple University Hospital was illogical and exorbitant, a Philadelphia judge ruled.

Judge Glynnis Hill of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas held Dec. 5 that inconsistencies in the jury’s determinations were significant enough to warrant a new trial in the case, captioned Hernandez v. Temple University Hospital.

Hill took issue with the jury’s findings on both liability and damages, ruling that the determinations did not “make logical or legal sense” or align with the evidence presented.

In the Hernandez case, plaintiff Dylan Hernandez, represented by the Duffy Firm, claimed he sustained neurological damage choking on food because Temple University Hospital prematurely discharged him from treatment for a gunshot wound to the neck. But Temple Health, represented by the Tucker Law Group and Duane Morris, asserted that Hernandez choked because he had been eating solid foods despite discharge orders instructing him not to.

The jury found that both the plaintiff and Temple Health were negligent, but that only Temple Health's negligence was a factual cause of the plaintiff's harm. The August verdict consisted of $39.1 million for past and future medical expenses, plus approximately $2.3 million for loss of earnings and $3.5 million for noneconomic damages.

But Temple Health contended in a posttrial motion that the jury contradicted its own findings by determining Hernandez's negligence was not a cause of his injuries.

The case had involved a factual dispute over what Hernandez had been eating when he choked, with the defendants claiming Hernandez had been eating chicken and the plaintiffs claiming he had been eating mashed potatoes.

Hill ruled that, regardless of which food the jurors believed Hernandez ate, the jury could only have found the plaintiff negligent if it believed he violated his discharge orders, as that was the only theory of the plaintiff’s negligence proposed by the defense. And if Hernandez had eaten solid food, he must have been at least somewhat liable for his injuries, the judge held.

And the jury's calculation on damages was even “more shocking to the court’s conscience and sense of justice,” Hill continued.

The verdict had included $39.3 million in future medical costs, while the plaintiff’s own expert estimated Hernandez’s future medical care would cost either $17.8 million or $19.6 million, depending on whether he received at-home or inpatient care.

Hill noted that the jury’s award surpassed both of the expert’s estimates combined but was allotted based on a lower life expectancy than the one calculated by the plaintiff’s expert.

“The court allowed the jury to review the report in the deliberation room,” Hill ruled, “and yet the jury clearly either made a mistake in their calculations or were swayed by sympathy or some other improper basis for decision making, as the award simply does not align with the evidence presented.”

Hill ruled that a new trial was the only way to correct the issues with the jury's verdict.

Temple Health general counsel John Ryan said the hospital is “grateful to Judge Hill for his well-reasoned and thoughtful approach to this case.”

Ryan said the ruling “underscores the inaccuracy of some ill-conceived labels of the Philadelphia judicial system,” referring to the American Tort Reform Foundation’s recent ranking of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas as the country’s worst “Judicial Hellhole” in its 2024-25 report.

Ryan said that while Temple Health remains “concerned that sympathetic juries can award damages that exceed what is appropriate to provide care for an injured plaintiff,” the ruling reflects that Temple Health’s strategy to invest more in outside counsel is working. …

Reprinted with permission from The Legal Intelligencer, © ALM Media Properties LLC. All rights reserved.