 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clelland v. Haas12/22/2000
care in his diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff. As an appellate court, we are required to give great deference to the jury's findings of fact when medical experts express different views, judgments and opinions on whether the standard of care was met in a particular case. While we might differ in our factual conclusions had we been sitting as the trial court, in accordance with th e requisite standard of review, we are compelled to affirm the trial court's findings. See Corley v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, 32,613, p.27 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 12/30/99), 749 So.2d 926, 941. Thus, we cannot disturb the jury's finding that Dr. Haas did not breach the standard of care in his evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff on October 13.
Because we find no manifest error in the jury's determination that Dr. Haas did not breach the applicable standard of care in his evaluation and treatment of plaintiff, we also find no error in the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and alternatively, for new trial. These assignments of error are meritless.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|