Question

A patient properly sued her doctor in federal court for medical malpractice. At trial, the doctor's attorney called four well-known experts in the field who uniformly agreed that the doctor acted within the normal standard of care in treating the patient. The patient's attorney called only one young and inexperienced expert who opined that the doctor did not act within the normal standard of care; however, he contradicted himself on the stand and could not answer certain simple questions. During the trial, no motions were made by the doctor's attorney. Surprisingly, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the patient, and the doctor's attorney filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law 22 days after the judgment was entered.Will the court grant the motion?A Yes, because the judgment was based on a verdict that a reasonable jury would not have had a legally sufficient basis to reach.B Yes, because there was no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.C No, because the doctor did not move for a judgment as a matter of law during the trial.D No, because a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law must be filed within 21 days after the judgment is entered.

Answer 1

Answer: the correct answer is C. No, because the doctor did not move for a judment as a matter of law during the trial.

Step-by-step explanation:

The court should not grant the motion. A judgment in spite of the verdict is now called a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law. To be valid, the party making the renewed motion must have moved for judgment as a matter of law at some time during the trial. Here, the doctor never moved for a judgment as a matter of law during the trial. Therefore, his motion for a renewed judgment as a matter of law will be denied.