the jury should have found that Dr. Callahan misplaced three out of four pedicle screws in Mr. Bair’s spine during the surgery. If the jury had chosen not to credit the testimony of Dr. Callahan and Dr. Cusick, there certainly was ample evidence to support a Plaintiffs’ verdict. However, if the jury credited the testimony of Dr. Callahan and Dr. Cusick and the evidence presented by Dr. Callahan, then the jury reasonably could have found that the evidence and testimony at trial did not establish Dr. Callahan’s negligence by the greater convincing force of the evidence. Ultimately, the jury determined that the expert testimony at trial did not establish negligence on the part of Dr. Callahan by the greater convincing force of the evidence. See Boesing, 540 F.3d at 890 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Even if this Court would have made different
holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial because nonmovant presented sufficient evidence at trial for the district court to conclude that the outcome was not against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach  testimony holding that the district court should grant a motion for a new trial when the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or will result in a miscarriage of justice emphasis added holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed holding that the district court did not err in finding the record sufficient to conclude prior conviction qualified as a violent felony for purposes of the acca as the evidence was sufficient to conclude the criminal action charged in one court was the basis for a judgment against the defendant in a different court