Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Patrick v. Sedwick

Supreme Court of Alaska · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedurelaw of the casefindings of factdamagesnew trialnewly discovered evidenceattorney's feeslaw of the case

Facts

Dr. Sedwick performed a subtotal thyroidectomy on Mary Patrick in 1957, and Patrick sued for personal injuries. In a prior appeal, the Supreme Court of Alaska set aside findings favoring Sedwick on liability and remanded with directions to enter findings for Patrick on liability and determine damages. On remand, Sedwick sought additional discovery and later a new trial based on a medical technique developed after the 1961 trial that allegedly could improve a paralyzed vocal cord, but the trial court denied those requests and awarded Patrick $42,500 in damages plus $2,500 in attorney's fees. The trial court's damages findings separately awarded amounts for past and future physical impairment, loss of time and future earning capacity, and past and future mental suffering.

Issue

Whether the court should revisit liability already determined in the prior appeal; whether the trial court's findings on damages were sufficiently specific under Civil Rule 52(a) to permit appellate review; whether the denial of further discovery and a new trial based on post-trial medical developments was an abuse of discretion; and whether the trial court could depart from the Rule 82(a) attorney-fee schedule without stating reasons.

Rule

Issues decided on a first appeal will not be reexamined on a second appeal in the same case absent exceptional circumstances. In a nonjury case, findings on damages must be sufficiently detailed and particular to give the appellate court a clear understanding of the basis of the award and permit review under Civil Rule 52(a). A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires, among other things, evidence that probably would change the result, was discovered after trial, could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence, is material, is not merely cumulative or impeaching, and relates to facts existing at the time of trial. When a court departs from the Civil Rule 82(a) fee schedule in awarding attorney's fees after a money judgment in contested litigation, it should state its reasons on the record.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a bench-tried negligence action in Anchorage, the state supreme court reversed a defense judgment and remanded with instructions to enter findings for Nina Flores on liability and to determine damages. After the trial court entered a damages judgment, Owen Mercer appealed again and argued that the first appellate decision on liability misread the trial record and should be reconsidered because it was legally wrong.

How should the appellate court rule on Mercer’s request to revisit liability?

Explanation. Issues decided on the first appeal ordinarily are not reexamined on a second appeal in the same case. A second appeal generally presents only proceedings after the mandate, absent exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the law-of-the-case doctrine. Mere disagreement with the earlier ruling is not enough. (Derived from Patrick v. Sedwick (n.d.).)