Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - ‘Take Care of Maya’ $200M Judgement Takes Shocking Turn

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. And did the conduct of Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital, in fact, harm Maya Kowalski. Yes. That was Maya Kowalski, as the verdicts were read in her civil trial against Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital in late 2023. A jury awarded her more than 200. million dollars, but an appeals court has put the breaks on that award and ordered a new trial. I take a look at the opinion and what could come next.

Starting point is 00:00:38 I'm Ann Jeanette Levy, and this is Crime Fix. If you ever get hurt, you might need someone in your corner to fight for you and Morgan and Morgan can do that. The firm has more than a thousand lawyers on its team because they are big winners. They've recovered more than $25 billion for half a million clients. In the last few months, a client in Florida got $12 million after the insurance company offered just $350,000. In Pennsylvania, a client was awarded $26 million. That was 40 times the insurance company's $650,000 offer.

Starting point is 00:01:19 Another client in PA got $29 million after being offered $500K. So even if you think your case is not worth millions and millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it really easy. You can start a claim and just eight clicks on your cell phone. So if you're ever hurt, start a claim at for the people.com slash crime fix or scan that QR code that you see right there on your screen. Maya Kowalski's case made headlines thanks to Netflix and that nine-week trial in which she sued a children's hospital in Florida, which was very widely viewed. In case, in case, in case, let's start at the very, very big. beginning. In 2015, Maya was nine years old when her health deteriorated significantly. She was

Starting point is 00:02:06 diagnosed with CRPS, that is complex regional pain syndrome, a neurological condition where a person's body can misinterpret even light touches as excruciating pain. It can cause stiffness, spasms, and limited mobility. It really sounds awful. In the family's eventual lawsuit, which we'll talk about, they use words like burning, bone crushing, shooting, and stanching. having to describe what Maya was feeling. The family's doctor treated Maya with ketamine infusions, which it's our understanding can block someone's pain receptors and try to normalize the body. Apparently, it's not a miracle cure and there can be flare-ups, but some doctors believe it can help, and Maya's doctor was one of those doctors. And according to the Kowalski's,

Starting point is 00:02:50 that's what happened in 2016. Maya had a flare-up, and so Jack and Biaeta, Maya's parents, check their daughter into Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. Bieta told the hospital to treat Maya with ketamine because it had worked for her in the past. But according to the lawsuit, the hospital staff refused to follow the family's instructions or the guidance of the family's doctor. The family says the hospital staff didn't have experience with CRPS. The family claimed hospital staff were suspicious of Maya's family because the ketamine treatment seemed really extreme. In fact, the family argued that the hospital suspected. Maya might be the victim of child abuse and that this was a case of Munchausen syndrome by proxy,

Starting point is 00:03:32 basically saying that Bieta was suffering from a condition in which she was faking or causing her daughter's illness. The family alleged that a hospital social worker contacted the Florida Department of Children and Families to report Bieta and refused to let Maya leave the hospital. Maya was taken into state custody and remained in the hospital and she didn't see her family for three months. Maya told People magazine that she was medically kidnapped. She claimed the hospital not only ignored her wishes and misdiagnosed her, but mistreated her, harmed her and caused her extreme emotional distress. In fact, there was an allegation that an employee may have even inappropriately examined Maya. This separation took a massive toll on Maya's family, resulting in Bieta's depression, fatigue, and overwhelming sense of hopelessness. In January 2017, Bieta Kowalski apparently couldn't take it anymore and decided to end it all. She made the choice to end her own life. The Kowalski family story was documented in the Netflix series, Take Care of Maya, watched by millions of people.

Starting point is 00:04:33 The Kowalski sued the hospital for medical malpractice, claiming medical negligence, false imprisonment and battery of Maya, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also argued fraudulent billing of Jack, an infliction of emotional distress of Bieta, and a wrongful death claim. The goal was to determine whether the hospital engaged in wrongdoing and therefore contributed to Bieta's death. Attorneys for the hospital didn't roll over.

Starting point is 00:04:58 They argued the hospital staff and doctors acted reasonably and were looking out for Maya's best interest. The case went to trial in 2023 and Maya testified. The nurses and doctors wanted to put a tube down my nose. And was here a PS, I mean, a blood pressure cuff, that hurts. So imagine, you know, like a tube being shoved down your nose into your stomach. And obviously, that would have caused so. much pain and I knew my body. I knew I was not going to be able to tolerate that. That is the only time I asked for sedation. I didn't just randomly yell out, I need sedation

Starting point is 00:05:38 like depicted in the medical records. I only asked for sedation when they wanted to do that procedure. And then were you given sedation before they tried to put this tube down your nose? I was not. And my mom was actually in the room, and she listened to the doctors and didn't demand for sedation. Instead, about, like, I would say two or three people held me down and tried to get the tube down my nose. That is when I was screaming, crying, and thrashing around. Maya also testified that she was being isolated during her time at all children's. Take a look. So her mom was there with Natalie, the friend that I had made, and I was wheeled over there, and I talked to them. Another nurse observed this interaction and quickly told somebody. Next thing I know, Kathy Beatty is in my room saying I'm not to ever speak to a patient again. And that day, Natalie had given me this little present because her mom noticed my parents were never with me. I think they just wanted to comfort me, and I have it in my bag today. Did they ever give you any reason why you, as a 10-year-old,

Starting point is 00:06:53 Couldn't just talk to the kid next door, for lack of a better term. I have no reason. I mean, they didn't give me any reason. The jury then heard gut-wrenching testimony from Maya about the last time that she saw her mom. My mom was like picking up her work bag and just like little things she had brought to the hospital. And she said, I love you and I'll see you tomorrow. And I never saw her again. But I bought my mom this very specific necklace.

Starting point is 00:07:19 It says I love you to the moon and back. It's just like she always said that to me. And then I found out later that she wore it every single day. And when she was found in the garage, she was still wearing it. And I have it on my neck right now. In the end, the jury sided with Maya. We, the jury, return the following verdict in regard to cognitive damages. Claim 1A, false imprisonment between October 7th and October 13 to 3rd.

Starting point is 00:07:53 2016, Maya Kowalski. One, what is the total amount of punitive damages, if any, which you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, should be assessed against Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital for the false imprisonment of Maya Kowalski occurring between October 7th and October 13, 2016. $15 million. The total in damages the jury awarded a whopping two. $260 million, $50 million of it was punitive damages. That was eventually reduced to $213.5 million. In December 2020, I spoke with Maya and her lawyer and asked her how she was doing. Well, I think it's pretty obvious that I'm definitely doing a lot better than I was when I was 10.

Starting point is 00:08:44 But that doesn't mean I don't face challenges. Even people in wheelchairs from the neck up, they look completely normal. So it's kind of hard to gauge just by looking at somebody, and I think that's important to keep in mind. But I do still struggle, as you said. I have the same burning pain. I get lesions, and I also suffer from different temperature changes that are so significant that, you know, even friends who hug me ask, oh, why are you so hot or why are you so cold? So it's very apparent that it's still there, but I just have to take everything. day, you know, slowly. All children's hospital vowed to appeal after being denied a request for a new

Starting point is 00:09:29 trial, and now the appeals court has ordered a new trial citing a number of errors by the trial court judge, including rulings on immunity conferred upon all children's hospital for reporting suspected child abuse. The opinion cites section 39 of the Florida statute. Any person, official, or institution participating in good faith in any act authorized or required by this chapter, reporting in good faith any instance of child abuse, abandonment, or neglect to the department or any law enforcement agency shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability, which might otherwise result by reason of such action. The appeals court called the case emotionally charged and pointed to other providers' concerns about psychological factors possibly impacting

Starting point is 00:10:16 Maya's health. The opinion states, evidence established that prior to Maya's admission to JHACHA, in October 2016, concerns had been raised about psychological factors affecting Maya's physical condition by medical professionals who had treated Maya at Tampa General Hospital and Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. The court further explained that Maya's condition appeared to improve during her treatment at all children's. During the months that Maya was sheltered at J.H.A.C.H. She was weaned off ketamine and the dependency court order releasing Maya from J.H.A.C.H. Prohibited additional ketamine treatments. Maya had been admitted to J-H-A-C-H in severe pain, unable to walk and receiving high doses of ketamine. When she was discharged from J-H-A-C-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-E-LAR-UPS. At the time of trial, the only

Starting point is 00:11:09 medications she routinely took were Claritin, Flonase, and a sleep-Aid. She had been able to walk, run, run, and ice skate. Maya testified that she had experienced no CRPS flare-ups in the three years following her January 2017 discharge from J.H.A.C.H. The appeals court opinion also cited another error the court made when it came to Maya Kowalski's claim that she was falsely imprisoned. Although our reversal of the judgment as to the October 7th through October 13th false imprisonment claim moots the issue specific to that claim, we would have otherwise concluded that directed verdict was warranted as to punitive damages because JHAAC's actions during that period do not meet the definition of either intentional misconduct or gross negligence. Directed verdict is a motion

Starting point is 00:12:00 made by a party in a civil case where they asked that a case be dismissed for lack of evidence. The appeals court said that motion should have been granted at several points during this case. The appeals court also called the closing argument given by the Kowalski's attorney, inflammatory. A footnote states, the closing arguments were also inflammatory. Counsel for the Kowalski's argued that J.H.A.C.H.A.C.H. took Mrs. Koalski out of the game by changing its diagnosis and treating the Kowalskies like criminals. Counsel then went through J.H.A.C.H.C.'s because if we get rid of the defenses, then all that is left is the Kowalski's case. Counsel for the Kowalskis argued that something happened between Mrs. Kowalski and J.H.A.H.H. that

Starting point is 00:12:45 J-H-A-C-H-H-H-H-H-H to call the department and that J-H-A-C-H was not going to let this brusque lady with an Eastern European accent come in and tell them how to do their job. They argued that J-H-A-C-H-Culling, calling the department hotline was retaliatory against Mrs. Kowalski and that she committed suicide because she knew that if she did not take drastic action, Maya would end up in some kind of foster care or die. The Kowalski's claimed hospital social worker Kathy Bady made incredibly inappropriate comments to Maya and her father about Biaa Kowalski, such as telling Maya that her mom was in a mental institution. Jack Kowalski testified that Bady asked him if he had considered divorcing his wife. And then Maya testified that Bady told her, I'm not trying to be your mother, but I can be. The appeals court determined Bia Kowalski wasn't present when those remarks were made so it didn't meet the standard for intentional infliction. of emotional distress. But the court determined that Maya's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress met the standard of outrageousness because of her age and her status

Starting point is 00:13:53 as a patient. She testified that social worker Beatty would say things to her about her mother and nurses would talk about her mother causing her symptoms with an earshot of her. One judge wrote, however, even after stripping Maya's IIED allegations of the offending claims and immunity entitled evidence, there remains competent substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings that Maya's I-IED claim met the high bar of outrageousness. These health care providers were in charge of caring for and treating Maya. Instead, they exploited their positions with full knowledge that Maya, a 10-year-old child, would not be able to endure such outrageous conduct and undoubtedly suffer severe emotional distress as a result. So the appeals court, throughout the judgment,

Starting point is 00:14:40 to Maya by the jury. The final judgment in favor of the Kowalskies is reversed. On remand, only the I-IED claim brought on behalf of Maya and the remaining false imprisonment battery and medical negligence claims may be retried. The attorney for Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital issued a statement about the opinion reversing the jury's award. This opinion sends a clear and vital message to mandatory reporters in Florida and across the country that their duty to report, court suspicions of child abuse and critically, their good faith participation in child protection activities remain protected. We thank the judges for their time and attention to this matter, and we appreciate that they understood what many did not, that a one-sided movie is no substitute

Starting point is 00:15:27 for a fair judicial process. So to discuss this decision from the appeals court, I want to bring in Greg Anderson. He represented Maya Kowalski and her family at the trial. two years ago. So Greg, welcome back. Thanks for joining me. Tell me, if you would, your reaction to this opinion. I know you're no longer representing Maya, but you represented her at trial. And so they basically gutted the verdict in this case. Oh, Antoin, that's good to see you again. It's been a year, over a year now. And last time we talked was right after the verdict. And of course, we were all very happy about that. I think we talked in December of 2023, and the verdict came in in November. To me, let me say that legally it was a shock. Practically, it was not outside the realm of things

Starting point is 00:16:25 I had considered could happen, given the circumstances post-trial. So, you know, I've only had a chance to read the entire opinion once. I have been trying to discern the second district panels rulings on a number of issues involving Chapter 39, which is the reporter statute, the child abuse statute in Florida. We got retained in 2017, so I had spent seven and a half years analyzing that statute in every conceivable case and interpretation of that statute. And I know that Judge Carroll had done the same and more. He spent, I can't even imagine the number of hours, he spent analyzing the law on that just did a brilliant brilliant job and so to read the opinion was from the legal standpoint at times confusing at times astounding there wasn't much on the key legal issues

Starting point is 00:17:28 that I agreed with but obviously you know I had brought the case and developed the case for seven years and tried the case. Well, they basically said that the hospital had immunity. You know, they suspected child abuse. And so they reported it to the hotline. And then the court got involved. And the court implemented orders and that the hospital was basically implementing the orders conferred upon them by the court. You know, the court said, you know, supervised visits with Maya's mom, et cetera. And there was going to be this trial. And sadly, Maya's mother took her own life the day before that trial was to begin. So, you know, I'm reading through all of this.

Starting point is 00:18:13 It's 46 pages, 47 pages. And they did say that sounded like there was intentional infliction of emotional distress on Maya and that that should be, you know, looked at and retried and evaluated. It sounds like it was outrageous conduct. The court believed. But they gutted everything else. So what do you, as a former lawyer of Mayas, see possibly happening here? I mean, do you think this case will ultimately be retried or, you know, I know you don't have a crystal ball, but do you think it gets retried or do you think it gets settled?

Starting point is 00:18:48 Well, there are actually four causes of action that survived. And it's important to note that Judge Carroll had planned for this contingency of a different rulings he made on Chapter 39, which I think we all agree is a difficult statute. I hope that the legislature does something about that. There have been some changes, some attempts to change the legislation so far on succession. So there are a number of causes of action and all directed more or less towards Maya that are going to be retried and reset by the court. The decision on whether to retry it, I think, if I were then, I would be moving for rehearing, based on the way that the court set up the verdict form because Judge Carroll foreseeing

Starting point is 00:19:38 that maybe the second district wouldn't agree with everything he did made each one of the acts of wrongdoing its own little mini trial. So the jury was asked, was there false imprisonment, were there any defenses to it, did it approximately cause injury or damage? And if so, what were the injuries and damages strictly related to that one event? And the idea being that in the event that the second reversed on one or more of the particularities because of Chapter 39, that there would be no need for a retrial. You've already had a trial on that particular issue. And that Joe Vig was specifically instructed over and over that they are to disregard other

Starting point is 00:20:29 events and focus on this one event for this one section of the of the verdict form you see so it was a very long verdict form i forget how many i'm sure i'm going to get this wrong but i thought it was over 50 pages of verdict form and many many many many questions so my hope for the sake of the family regardless of how jennifer and i have been treated would be that on rehearing the second looks at what Judge Carroll did and reconsideres whether those need to be retried because I just think it's already been done once before and it was so well segregated out by the trial court. There's no reason to put the family through it again. There's no reason to put the court and the judicial system and the taxpayers through it again. But, you know, I don't write the law or even decide the

Starting point is 00:21:24 law. Interesting. You know, there was one last point, you know, that the appeals court said, you know, that the closing arguments were inflammatory, you know, what is your response to that? Because, you know, they're basically saying the judge screwed up at every turn. I mean, that's how I read this opinion. Which is strange because Judge Carroll is considered from my reading, for instance, he was just appointed the head of the 12th Circuit's complex litigation. section. He was chosen by his fellow judges to be the most, if you will, intellectual and best able to deal with complex issues. And so I think it's going way overboard to say that he

Starting point is 00:22:15 screwed up everywhere. I don't think he screwed up anywhere on this. I have my own personal feelings about how this came down. And I was there at the oral argument, and I saw the questions asked to get to your point on my closing. The first thing to notice is that it was a footnote. Right. It was not in the body of the decision. And therefore, it was not part of any decision of whether to retry the case or not. And here's another huge problem. There were no objections during the closing. And for 250 years, our republic, and 100, what is it now, 60 or 80 years of our state has required that if you disagree with something at a trial, you must object. And the trend in the past 20 years has been you should

Starting point is 00:23:11 move for a mistrial. To give the trial court the chance to preserve the trial and to correct any wrongdoing, a corrective instruction. Mr. Anderson, maybe you went too far over there. Maybe ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and that's hyperbole. I ask you to do. disregarded, those kind of instructions. And they're brought about because the defense feels that there's something that first is objectionable, right? So they stand up and say, I object, which they didn't. Second, if it's really objectionable and they think it could affect the whole trial, in effect the whole trial, then they're to move for mistrial, which they didn't do. And they didn't really even raise it in their briefing. And again, I want to say this, I haven't been back

Starting point is 00:23:53 through all of the briefing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they did bring it up there. But reading back through it the last time, I don't remember that being a focus at all of their appeal. So it was, however, brought up by some of the amicus curiae that is friends of the court, which are the industry, the Florida Hospital Association, Children's Hospital Association. They basically had about four bites at the apple with different associations writing friend of the court briefs. And they did bring it up. The other thing I'll say about it is that, this case involved punitive damages. And I went back last night and I pulled every decision I could find from the second district court of appeals. And I noted that there wasn't any case law cited about

Starting point is 00:24:41 what I said or did in that footnote. It was just, I went overboard. But then I recalled that this was a punitive damages case. And there are, by my count, at least seven decisions that specifically say that in punitive damages cases, counsel is given much wider latitude in making arguments. Greg, we're going to keep a really close eye on this and see where the case goes from here. Thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me. And we will keep a close eye on this story. as it moves forward.

Starting point is 00:25:24 That's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - ‘Take Care of Maya’ $200M Judgement Takes Shocking Turn

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.