Stith v. Bella Vita Health & Rehab. Centr., 1CA-CV 24-0484 (App. Div. I, July 6, 2026) (J. Morse)https://coa1.azcourts.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nwb65c1VuhQ%3D&portalid=1

RULE 50 (a) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTTER OF LAW IS REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL IF RULE 50(b) MOTION IS ALSO MADE AT CLOSE OF EVIDENCE

Plaintiff hit her head during care provided by defendant rehabilitation center which ultimately resulted in a serious brain injury. She sued the defendant for failing to provide regular neurological checks in the hours following the head injury allegedly resulting in permanent brain injury from a brain bleed. Plaintiff put on expert testimony establishing a prima facie case of negligence in failing to perform the testing. 

At the close of plaintiff's case defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under rule 50(a) Ariz. Rules Civ. Proc. arguing plaintiff failed to prove causation in her case in chief. the trial court found the liability experts testimony was adequate on causation and denied the motion. After the defense case was presented, plaintiff put on rebuttal expert testimony to directly address the causation issue. Defendant then moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) which was denied. The jury returned a $10 million.

The defendant appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed.

First the court of appeals held that a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) is reviewable if at the close of all evidence the defendant then urges a Rule 50(b) motion for the same relief. A Rule 50(a)motion should be granted if a "jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the [plaintiff]."

Reviewing the evidence presented the court of appeals found that plaintiff failed to present causation evidence in her case in chief and that causation could not be inferred to meet plaintiff's burden of fully establishing a prima facie case in chief. Plaintiff could have moved to reopen her case in chief and properly prove up the causation there, but she failed to do so. Presenting the evidence after a motion to reopen gives the defense the opportunity to respond to all the evidence in plaintiff's case in chief in the defense case which is not generally allowed after plaintiff's rebuttal case.

Jury verdict Reversed.