Appellate panel hears challenge to special‑verdict question in Saul v. Ringle

Joyce Williams, representing plaintiff‑appellant Noah Keith Saul, told the court the trial judge erred by submitting a special verdict form that required the plaintiff to prove as a threshold that the clinical notes were created in 2022. "1st, on the morning of closing arguments, the court erred as a matter of law by issuing a special verdict form that required appellant to prove as a threshold to recovery that the clinical notes were created in 2022," Williams said during argument.

The panel pressed Williams on whether the creation date was an element the jury had to find or merely relevant to a statute‑of‑limitations defense. A judge noted the plaintiff repeatedly framed 2022 as the operative date in the record and asked whether a jury could nonetheless infer another creation year from the totality of evidence. Williams replied the critical factual finding for liability was that the notes were fabricated, not the precise year of creation; she argued date issues arose only because of affirmative defenses the defense asserted.

Respondents’ counsel Amanda Thorisberg told the court the special verdict question fell within the trial court's discretion under CR 49A, which permits special verdict questions on issues of fact. "This court should affirm all of the orders challenged and let the jury's unanimous verdict stand because the jury and the trial court heard for weeks on end that Mr. Ringle made up these clinical notes in 2022 of whole cloth after the treatment relationship ended, And they ultimately disagreed with that allegation," Thorisberg said.

Thorisberg and the panel debated whether inserting a date‑specific fact on the verdict form effectively folded a factual issue into the elements the plaintiff needed to prove. Thorisberg argued the trial court reasonably sought to prevent the jury from basing a verdict on healthcare‑judgment reasoning elicited at trial. The panel also discussed whether any potential error was harmless, with defense counsel arguing the jury had sufficient evidence to reject the plaintiff's claim even if the form's language were tweaked.

The court recessed after argument; no ruling was announced from the bench.