Lama v. Borras case brief summary
16 F.3d 473 (1st Cir. 1994)
CASE FACTS
Appellant surgeon and hospital disputed denial of post-verdict motions by a district court in the medical malpractice action of appellee patient and wife.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed. The court held that an expert witness established the standard practice for a neurosurgeon. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that appellant surgeon failed to provide the customary treatment and that his failure was the most probable cause of appellee husband's injuries. The court held that breach of appellant hospital's regulation and proximate causation of appellee husband's injuries were shown.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
16 F.3d 473 (1st Cir. 1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant surgeon and
hospital disputed denial of post-verdict motions by the United States
District Court for the District Court in the medical malpractice
action of appellee patient and wife. Appellant surgeon argued that
neither a general medical standard favoring conservative treatment
nor causation was shown. Appellant hospital argued that it was not
shown that violation of a regulation was a proximate cause of
appellee husband's injuries.CASE FACTS
Appellant surgeon and hospital disputed denial of post-verdict motions by a district court in the medical malpractice action of appellee patient and wife.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court held that an expert witness established that the standard practice was for a neurosurgeon to treat the patient conservatively for a period of time before surgery.
- The court held that there was also sufficient evidence for the jury to find that appellant surgeon failed to provide the customary conservative treatment.
- Based on the conflicting expert testimony, the jury could have reasonably found that appellant surgeon's failure to administer conservative treatment was the most probable cause of appellee husband's injuries.
- Therefore, appellant surgeon's post-trial motions were properly denied.
- The court held that appellees had established that the failure of appellee hospital's nurses to report on each nursing shift was a breach of its regulation.
- The court held that appellees had also met their burden of proving that the breach of duty was a proximate cause of appellee husband's injuries.
- Therefore, appellant hospital's motion for judgment as a matter of law was properly denied.
- The court affirmed.
The court affirmed. The court held that an expert witness established the standard practice for a neurosurgeon. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that appellant surgeon failed to provide the customary treatment and that his failure was the most probable cause of appellee husband's injuries. The court held that breach of appellant hospital's regulation and proximate causation of appellee husband's injuries were shown.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment