Page 2 of 2
N.C.P.I.—Civil 809.199
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SAMPLE VERDICT FORM—DAMAGES ISSUES.
GENERAL CIVIL VOLUME
REPLACEMENT JUNE 2015
------------------------------
2
ISSUE (For use with N.C.P.I.-Civil 809.160)
Did the plaintiff suffer (disfigurement) (loss of use of part of the body)
(permanent injury) (death) that [was] [were] proximately caused by conduct
of the defendant that was (in reckless disregard of the rights of others)
3
(grossly negligent) (fraudulent) [or] (intentional) (with malice)?
ANSWER: _________
1 NOTE WELL: If the plaintiff seeks damages for both wrongful death and personal
injury, this issue and the liability issue can be modified to include at the end the phrase “other
than injuries that resulted in the death of the deceased.”
2 NOTE WELL: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.19(a) imposes a limit on “noneconomic
damages.” As of January, 1, 2014, that limit is $515,000. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.19(a)
(limit on damages for non-economic loss reset every three years to reflect change in Consumer
Price Index). This issue is relevant only if the plaintiff seeks entry of judgment that includes
non-economic damages greater than $515,000, and therefore would displace the current
limit on non-economic damages.
3 NOTE WELL: N.C. R. Civ. P. 42(b)(3) requires the court, upon motion of a party, to
bifurcate issues of liability and damages when the plaintiff seeks damages greater than
$150,000, unless the court for “good cause shown orders a single trial.”
N.C. R. Civ. P.
42(b)(3) (2011).
In such a bifurcated case, “[e]vidence relating solely to compensatory
damages shall not be admissible until the trier of fact has determined that the defendant is
liable.” Id. Arguably, but not expressly, the issue of gross negligence/permanent injury is
one of damages- that is, whether there is a statutory cap on non-economic damages that
would be tried in the second phase of the case.