After looking up a the definition of 'negligent misrepresentation', I can see why the jury awarded this nominal amount.
From the article:
Connor said the plaintiffs contended that Anderson had been bleeding heavily before she underwent surgery, and that much of her blood loss could have been by prevented by taking her to surgery immediately.
“She was clearly bleeding in the emergency room; they commented about their inability to do an intravaginal exam because of her bleeding,” said Connor. “The problem was that the records did not show how much she was losing; part of our complaint was that they weren’t documenting that.”
With its expertise in bloodless medicine, the hospital had an added responsibility to determine how urgently the surgery was needed. Having been in the same situation (waiting for surgery at 7 am for a D&C due to massive bleeding), it's the doctor's responsibility to determine whether the D&C should be done immediately. Nurses constantly monitoring and checking your blood flow (has it gone from gushing to a trickle? Is it stopped?).
It seems to me that is where the negligence would come in. Because they are 'specialists' in bloodless surgery, they should have been aware that she was 'bleeding out' while waiting for her D&C, and performed the surgery on an emergency basis, instead of scheduling the OR and waiting.
Here's the info. on negligent misrepresentation:
url: http://www.nylitguide.com/chapter-pages/fraud-negligent-misrepresentation/
Fraud - Negligent Misrepresentation
1Elements and Case Citations
It is well settled that “[a] claim for negligent misrepresentation requires the plaintiff to demonstrate
- the existence of a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff;
- that the information was incorrect; and
- reasonable reliance on the information.”
Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 180 (2011).
“A special relationship may be established by ‘persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust with the injured party such that reliance on the negligent misrepresentation is justified.’” Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 180 (2011).