Court of Appeals Reverses Medical Malpractice Verdict Against Rehabilitation Center, Orders Entry of Judgment in Defendant’s Favor

Stith v. Bella Vita Health & Rehabilitation Center

Arizona Court of Appeals

July 6, 2026

JSH Attorney:  Eileen GilBride

Court of Appeals Reverses Medical Malpractice Verdict Against Rehabilitation Center, Orders Entry of Judgment in Defendant’s Favor

Today the Arizona Court of Appeals held in a two-to-one opinion that (a) a defendant may appeal the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of plaintiff’s case, and (b) the trial court in this case should have granted defendant’s motion and entered judgment for the defendant at the close of plaintiff’s case, instead of allowing the case to continue and plaintiff to present new, critical causation testimony in its rebuttal case.  The court of appeals reversed the jury’s $10 million verdict for plaintiff and ordered judgment entered in defendant’s favor.

The case centered around treatment that plaintiff received at the defendant Rehabilitation Center.  Plaintiff bumped her head during a bed transfer.  Nursing staff checked plaintiff and found no swelling, bruising, or outward signs of injury, but did not thereafter conduct periodic neurological checks.  The next morning, plaintiff was found unresponsive and was taken to the hospital for surgery to repair a subdural hematoma.  She claimed significant injuries as a result.

Plaintiff alleged that periodic neuro checks after the head bump would have uncovered the subdural hematoma earlier and led to earlier surgery and a better outcome.  However, she failed to elicit expert testimony to that effect during her case in chief.  Therefore, at the close of plaintiff’s case in chief, defendant moved for a Rule 50(a) judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to present evidence on an essential element of her claim—causation.  The trial court denied defendant’s motion and the trial continued.  Then, after defendant rested its case, Plaintiff presented the missing causation testimony during her rebuttal case, over defendant’s objection.  The jury returned a $10 million verdict for plaintiff.  Defendant renewed its Rule 50(a) argument in a post-judgment Rule 50(b) motion, which is a pre-requisite for appealing the denial of judgment as a matter of law.  The trial court denied that motion also since, by then, plaintiff had presented the previously missing causation evidence.

Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying its Rule 50(a) motion.  Defendant argued that allowing plaintiff to wait until her rebuttal case to present essential causation testimony prevented defendant from responding in its case.  Plaintiff argued that the denial of a Rule 50(a) motion is not appealable because the Rule gives the trial court discretion to deny it even if essential evidence is missing from plaintiff’s case.

The court of appeals majority held that the denial of a Rule 50(a) motion made at the close of plaintiff’s case is appealable, as long as the defendant renewed that motion post-trial in a Rule 50(b) motion, which defendant here did.  The court reasoned in part that if the denial of a Rule 50(a) motion were not appealable, then a trial court could never err by denying it, even when the plaintiff has failed to present evidence on an essential element of her claim in her case-in-chief.  The court also acknowledged that while plaintiff could have moved to re-open her case in chief to present the causation evidence, she did not do so.  And had she done so, defendant could have responded to that evidence during its case.  The court also held that in reviewing the issue, it would consider only the evidence before the trial court when deciding the Rule 50(a) motion—the evidence plaintiff presented before the close of her case.  And since plaintiff failed to present causation evidence in her case-in-chief and the Rule 50(a) motion should have been granted, the majority reversed the jury verdict for plaintiff and ordered judgment entered for defendant.

The dissenting judge questioned whether the denial of a Rule 50(a) motion is appealable.  He analogized the denial of a Rule 50(a) motion to the denial of a summary judgment motion, which is generally not appealable.  The dissenting judge also found the word “may” in Rule 50(a) to be significant, noting that the permissive language “discourages [judges] from calling contests at halftime.”  It also allows courts to decide cases on the merits instead of upon “matters of procedure.”  The dissenting judge finally said the error in denying the Rule 50(a) motion was harmless considering that plaintiff could have re-opened her case to present the causation evidence.  He would have affirmed the jury’s verdict.