Gaunt

Nelson v. Gaunt

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 3d 593
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 1981Civ. No. 44625California7,316 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Taylor, J.

Defendant, Frank L. Gaunt, appeals 1 from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding $450,000 in compensatory and $1.5 million in punitive damages to a former patient, Mary L. Nelson, in her action for assault and battery, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gaunt argues that: 1) each of Nelson’s causes of action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for malpractice; 2) his decision to represent himself was not voluntarily made; 3) the court erred in the admission of certain evidence; 4) errors in the instructions; 5) the compensatory damage award was excessive and the punitive damages award was not supported by the evidence; and 6) Nelson’s counsel was guilty of prejudicial misconduct. For the reasons set forth below, we have concluded that the judgment should be affirmed.

*599 Viewing the record in favor of the judgment and verdict, the following facts appear:

On May 28, 1968, Nelson consulted Gaunt at his San Jose office about the possibility of breast augmentation by an implant procedure. Gaunt told her that implants were not satisfactory but that he had an alternate procedure that was simple, inexpensive, free of side effects and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.