Verdict capping $38M damages at $475,000 should stand, state argues

May 26—The state says the single-incident award to a victim of abuse at New Hampshire's youth detention center should stand, despite a Rockingham County judge's statement that the compensation would be an "unconscionable miscarriage of justice" for a man who says he was physically and sexually assaulted hundreds of times as a child at the facility.

Earlier this month, the jury awarded $38 million to David Meehan but found the state Department of Health and Human Services liable for only one incident related to Meehan's stay at the Youth Development Center over 30 years ago. State statutes cap the damages for a single incident at $475,000.

"The cognitive dissonance between a $38 million verdict and the finding of a single incident of actionable abuse cannot stand," Judge Andrew Schulman wrote in an order issued May 22.

Meehan's attorneys, in an objection filed Friday, asked the court to deny the state's request for a statutory cap on damages and award the full $38 million to Meehan.

The "jury's finding of one incident is manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence, and cannot stand as a matter of law," Meehan's lawyers wrote. To deny the bulk of the damages "caused by DHHS's egregious malfeasance and gross disregard for his wellbeing" violates Meehan's rights under New Hampshire law, including "a complete and prompt remedy for his injuries."

"The jury in this case unanimously found that David had suffered $38 million in damages — over half that amount due to DHHS's abuse of power through the manner in which it treated (Meehan) and other children in its care in the late 1990s," they wrote.

A hearing to discuss the options is scheduled for June 24.

One potential solution, Schulman said, is to award Meehan damages for an estimated 116 eligible incidents instead of a new trial, which would delay resolution and be emotionally debilitating to Meehan.

"Simply put, no reasonable jury could have accepted the gist of plaintiffs' testimony, awarded $38 million in damages, and found less than 116 incidents," Schulman stated in his order last week.

In an objection filed May 23, the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office said Meehan's request for a partial judgment for more than one incident — with uncapped damages — should not be granted.

At dispute is the number of incidents the jurors intended to seek damages for, and whether they found ample proof of DHHS's liability for Meehan's abuse, considering the perpetrators were not found liable.

The state's attorneys argued: "His counsel told the jury in closing that $1 billion would not be enough to compensate him for any single incident. To put it simply, (Meehan's) counsel made the decision to litigate the case as they did and are dissatisfied with the result. The onus was on them to prove their case before the jury, including on the number of incidents, and unanimously, the jury found that they proved a single incident."

The state maintains DHHS's alleged negligence and failure to protect Meehan from abuse could constitute a single offense.

Meehan's case against DHHS concerns ongoing physical, sexual and emotional abuse by residential staff employed by the department while Meehan was a juvenile at the YDC. In court proceedings, he recounted extensive details, including forced sex acts, beatings and room confinement when he was not allowed to use the bathroom for days.

Schulman said the court's instructions to the jurors may have been too vague.

The jurors' explicit task was not to determine how many times Meehan was abused, but to "make a unanimous finding" of how many incidents he had proven "were legally caused by DHHS's negligent hiring, training or supervision of the alleged perpetrators or breach of fiduciary duty," the state's attorneys said. Meehan's counsel "failed to attempt to explain" what alleged breach was the cause.

The law protects the jury's role as a factfinder and "allows the Court little discretion" to overturn a jury's verdict, according to the state's attorneys, who argue Meehan has no legal ground for a JNOV motion.

A judgment notwithstanding a verdict is a judgment by the trial judge after a jury has issued a verdict in favor of the losing party without a new trial, according to the Legal Information Institute.

According to the state, the jury could have reasonably disbelieved the number of rapes alleged — four times a week by one YDC worker over seven to eight months in 1998, and twice a week by two others for almost six months in 1998 — according to its objection.

"Indeed, if the jury truly found that (Meehan) had been serially raped more than 200 times by Buskey, Murphy and Woodlock, it is inconceivable that they would not have apportioned any fault to any of those three individuals," the state's objection stated.