Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr

In Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 638, 1994 Ohio 324, 635 N.E.2d 331, the conduct giving rise to the claim for punitive damages was the deliberate alteration of medical records. There, the defendant-surgeon "whited-out" a typed entry in the medical record indicating that it was his decision to merely monitor a growth in the plaintiff's leg because he believed, at that time, the growth was benign. Id. at 643. A handwritten notation was inserted which provided that the patient-plaintiff refused a recommended biopsy and follow up work. Id. Thereafter, copies of the new record were distributed to different doctors and hospitals treating the plaintiff. Several months before she died of a malignant soft-tissue cancer that had originated from the growth in her leg, the plaintiff filed a complaint for discovery related to a potential medical malpractice claim. Id. at 640-41. During discovery, the original medical record was reconstructed, exposing the doctor's changes. In reviewing whether punitive damages were appropriately rewarded in this case, the supreme court found that such an intentional alteration of documents was "indicative of actual malice," thereby rendering it necessary to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury. Id. at 652. It further concluded that the doctor's "alteration of records exhibited a total disregard for the law and the rights of the plaintiff and her family," in that it was a blatant attempt by the doctor to exculpate himself for his medical negligence while placing the blame on the plaintiff. Id. The jury awarded the plaintiff $ 3,255,000 in compensatory damages and $ 3 million in punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Ohio ordered a remittitur of $ 2 million. Id. at 653. Thus, the punitive damages award was approximately one-third of the compensatory damages award and one-third to one-half of the defendant's net worth. Id. Appellants have cited Moskovitz for the proposition that punitive damages should not exceed net worth, however, in that same case, the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the view that "no simple mathematical formula can be applied as to either a minimum or a maximum, and there is a wide range between those figures." Id. at 653.