1. This article makes no comment on the merits of the claims or defenses in these cases,
or the parties or specific lawyers involved.
This article does not analyze or include
cases that settled before or during trial,
mistrials, stipulated judgments, judgments
as a matter of law, or criminal cases. The
verdicts as summarized do not include costs,
fees or reductions that may have been established later. The parties listed are those who
were active when the verdict was delivered.
Significant post-verdict developments are
in these endnotes. Because the focus of
this article is on the verdicts, not all of the
post-verdict activity is reported here.
2. pacer.gov for the federal system; superior
court.maricopa.gov for Maricopa County;
agave.cosc.pima.gov for Pima County;
publicaccess/ caselookup.aspx for the other
3. After the jury’s $360 million verdict in
the 2007 trial (including $150 million in
punitive damages) was overturned, the
judge ordered a new trial, and the Court
of Appeals affirmed. 229 Ariz. 327 (App.
2012). Following the 2015 trial, defen-
dants’ motion for new trial, motion for
amended findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and motion for judgment as a
matter of law are pending.
4. Other plaintiffs were Sean Humphrey,
Chase Quinn, Brent Quinn and Lynn
5. Dimitri Rozenman’s motion for a new trial
was denied, and he has filed an appeal.
6. Other plaintiffs were Michael Bruno’s adult
daughters Renee Bruno and Anne Bruno,
and Bruno’s mother Nina Bruno. The
parties entered into a high/low agreement
7. Taiwan Union Technology Corporation
filed a motion for a new trial and a motion
for judgment as a matter of law, which were
denied in part and granted in part. TUC has
filed an appeal that is pending.
8. Other plaintiffs were Kottayil as trustee and
other family members who were shareholders. Other defendants were John Kapoor, the
Kapoor Trust, Michael Babich, Steve Meyer,
Brian Tambi, and Rao Akella. During the
litigation, Insys merged with another company, became the subsidiary entity, and
changed its name to Insys Pharma, Inc. The
parent company changed its name to Insys
Therapeutics, Inc., went public in 2013, and
was added as a defendant under a successor
liability theory, which the court rejected.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal and defendants
have filed a cross-appeal, which are pending.
9. University Medical Center filed a motion
for amended or altered judgment and
motion for a new trial, which were denied,
and has filed a notice of appeal.
10. Newman and Arizona Ob-Gyn Affiliates
filed motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, which were denied.
11. To calculate an average for a particular
county, we add up all the verdict totals
where damages were awarded, then divide
by how many plaintiffs’ verdicts there were
in that county. To calculate the median in
a venue, we place the plaintiffs’ verdicts in
value order and find the middle number,
where exactly half of those verdicts are
higher and half are lower.
12. Average verdicts and median verdicts are
computed from all plaintiffs’ verdicts in
the particular venue. Defense verdicts and
reductions for comparative negligence or
non-party fault are deliberately not factored
into the analyses of averages and medians
for the reasons noted above. If we included
defense verdicts into that analysis, the average of all civil verdicts statewide in 2015
(plaintiff’s and defendant’s verdicts) would
13. Ochoa-Valenzuela filed a motion for new
trial that was denied, and has also filed
notice of appeal that is pending.
children on both sides of the
roadway. Verduzco swerved when
Xavier darted into traffic but the
impact was unavoidable.
Here are significant appellate
opinions from 2015 about past
years’ notable verdicts:
Sara Jaynes et al. v. Elizabeth
McConnell et al., Arizona Court
of Appeals, Division One, CA-CV 13-0651.19
This was a $3.7 million medical
malpractice verdict in 2012. In a
published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for
a new trial on both procedural and substantive grounds. After the
2013 trial, McConnell filed a motion for new trial, which the trial
court denied as both untimely and on substantive grounds. The
Court of Appeals held that the 15-day time limit to file a Rule 59
motion for a new trial does
not begin to run until the
judgment is final and appealable, and is not triggered by
when the judgment is merely
filed. The Court of Appeals
also reversed on the merits,
finding the trial court abused
its discretion in excluding testimony that would have been
offered by McConnell’s expert witness about his own
personal practice in calling a
referring physician. The Arizona Supreme Court denied
McConnell’s petition for
Diana Glazer et al. v. State of Arizona, Arizona Supreme
Court, CV-14-0123.20 This was a road design award for $7.8
million in 2012. In 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
verdict for plaintiffs. In a published opinion in 2015, the Arizona Supreme also affirmed and held that no evidence existed
Punitive damages remain
rare and are generally
given by Arizona juries
only when they are
presented with aggravating
or extreme facts.