FOLLOW US

A California appeals court has declined to order a retrial in a medical malpractice case involving a patient who lost most of the vision in one eye during spinal surgery, ruling that procedural missteps by the plaintiff’s legal team undermined her arguments on appeal.

In a decision issued Wednesday, a three judge panel from the Second Appellate District affirmed the verdict in favor of Thousand Oaks Surgery Center LLC and spine surgeon Dr. Kapil Moza. The court rejected claims by patient Kelli Weidemier that the jury was improperly influenced after learning she had previously received $500,000 related to the case.

Weidemier argued that jurors should never have been exposed to the fact that she received the payment, which came from a settlement with anesthesiologist Dr. Bradley Spiegel, who had been a co defendant earlier in the litigation. Spiegel was later dismissed from the case after reaching a settlement.

The appellate panel disagreed, finding that Weidemier herself opened the door to the issue when she testified at trial about being in severe financial distress. The defense responded by seeking to challenge her credibility, arguing that the jury should know she had received a substantial sum of money, without specifying its source.

The trial judge allowed the information to be presented through a jury instruction, telling jurors that Weidemier had received $500,000. The appeals court found no error in that decision.

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion,” the panel wrote. “The impeachment evidence concerned appellant’s credibility and was therefore highly relevant.”

During closing arguments, Dr. Moza’s attorney went further, suggesting a connection between the $500,000 payment and Spiegel’s exit from the case. He told jurors they knew Spiegel was once a defendant, knew Weidemier received $500,000 in 2020, and knew Spiegel was no longer involved, inviting them to draw their own conclusions.

Despite the implication that the money came from a settlement, Weidemier’s attorneys did not object at the time. The appellate court said that failure proved decisive.

“If appellant had claimed that counsel’s argument constituted misconduct, she would have forfeited the issue by not objecting in the trial court,” the panel said.

The court also rejected several other arguments raised on appeal. One involved a witness impeachment issue during cross-examination, where Weidemier’s counsel abandoned the matter after a brief exchange with the trial judge. Another argument claimed the surgery center should be held responsible for Spiegel’s actions because he was acting as its agent.

The panel said there was no substantial evidence showing the surgery center controlled how Spiegel administered anesthesia or monitored the patient, a key requirement for establishing agency liability.

The underlying injury occurred in 2017, when Weidemier suffered partial blindness after antiseptic solution known as ChloraPrep entered her left eye during spinal surgery. She later underwent roughly ten eye surgeries but regained little vision, according to the court record.

At trial, Dr. Moza argued that monitoring and protecting the patient’s eyes during surgery fell within the anesthesiologist’s responsibilities, not the surgeon’s.

Attorneys for the parties were not immediately available for comment following the ruling.

The decision brings the case to a close, reinforcing the jury’s original finding and underscoring the importance of timely objections and issue preservation during trial proceedings.