In September, we had two appellate oral arguments, one in the Supreme Court of Hawaii and another in the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii.

In the case heard by the Supreme Court, our client Gregory Kanahele, Jr. a minor, was seriously injured after being struck by a vehicle in a cross walk by an alleged negligent Defendant. After a jury trial, the court accepted a jury verdict awarding Petitioners $12,280.41 in special or medical damages and $1.00 in general damages for pain and suffering. We argued that the jury’s $1.00 general damages award is the same as zero, inconsistent with the evidence and requires a new trial. 

When a jury finds there is enough evidence to award special damages for medical expenses, they must also consider what is fair and reasonable to award for pain and suffering.  We believed that it was erroneous to award a nominal $1.00 in general damages, when Gregory Jr. was quite distraught after being hit, had to endure a 2 hour surgery to repair his jaw and sew back various parts of his mouth and face. 

The Hawaii Supreme Court just released their unanimous opinion and ordered another trial on damages only.  Justice was done. The Supreme Court wisely corrected the trial court error.

Hear the oral arguments. click here 

    Our second case is Gregory Slingluff against the State of Hawaii for medical negligence while incarcerated in the Hawaii State prison. The State appealed after the Circuit Court Judge Victoria Marks in early 2009, awarded Mr. Slingluff $983,395.29 because of the State's failure to timely treat an infection in his private area at the prison infirmary. Four days later, his gonads swelled to the size of a small melon, which then had to be surgically removed, when he was finally transported to Queen's Medical Center. 

The State of Hawai`i argued the doctrine of qualified immunity which should extend to a state-employed prison physician who allegedly commits medical malpractice in the diagnosis and treatment of an inmate.  The State also contends, that the Circuit Court erred when it found that the defendant doctors caused Mr. Slingluff's loss of fertility.  We as Mr. Slingluff's attorneys disagree with both contentions. One, the standard of care in the community applies to the professional conduct of physicians who practice medicine in the prison, as any other facility.  Secondly, there were ample evidence that the surgery negatively impacted the major sperm producing functions.

The opinion of the Intermediate Court of Appeals is pending.  Hear the arguments here.