 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Keaton v. Greenville Hospital System3/1/1999
ime the judgment was made, and not in light of what hindsight may reveal." Patient opposed the hindsight charge at trial by saying, "my problem with the hindsight charge is that basically any records review by a medical expert is a review technically in hindsight." Since his experts gained their knowledge from records reviews, Patient was concerned that the charge gave the impression that in order to testify as an expert, the doctor had to be in the emergency room.
We believe that Patient's argument is not supported by a reasonable interpretation of this jury charge. A common theme in the area of medical malpractice is that the jury must look at the doctor's actions "under similar conditions and in like circumstances." The hindsight jury charge in this case merely elucidated the meanings of "similar circumstances" and "like conditions." The jury charge did not restrict record reviews as Patient claims. The trial Judge even instructed the jurors that:
" ou and I don't know what the standards are, and you have to determine the facts and circumstances that existed on the date and time in question when this child was brought into the emergency room. And in evaluating, determining what the standard of care is, you have to have expert testimony as to what the doctor, the hospital, the residents, and the nurses should or should not have done based on those circumstances. In giving their opinions, the experts must review the records at the time of the incident." (Emphasis added).
"In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial. If, as a whole, the charges are reasonably free from error, isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute reversible error." Bragg v. Hi-Ranger, Inc., 319 S.C. 531, 462 S.E.2d 321, 330 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing Manning v. Dial, 271 S.C. 79) 245 S.E.2d 120 (1978); Dickard v. Merritt, 256 S.C. 458, 182 S.E.2d 886 (1971); State v. Barksdale, 3 11 S.C. 210, 428 S.E.2d 498 (Ct. App. 1993)). When viewing the challenged portion of the jury charge "as a whole" with the rest of the Judge's instruction, we believe the trial court adequately charged South Carolina law.
Even if this Court assumed the hindsight charge was confusing, any effect that resulted from this charge does not warrant reversal.
[Al confusing charge alone is insufficient to warrant reversal. State v. Jefferies, 316 S.C. 131 446 S.E.2d 427 (1994). Jury instructions must be considered as a whole, and if, as a whole, they are reasonably free from error, isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute reversible error. State v. Barksdale, 311 S.C. 210) 428 S.E.2d 498 (Ct. App. 1993). When reviewing a trial Judge's instruction for error, this court must consider the instructions in their entirety. State v. Andrews, 324 S.C. 516) 479 S.E.2d 808 (Ct. App. 1996). In order to find the error harmless, we must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict. Id.
State v. Kerr, 330 S.C. 132, 498 S.E.2d 2121 218 (Ct. App. 1998). We therefore find that, as a whole, the jury charge was adequate and does not require a new trial
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we AFFIRM AS MODIFIED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
FINNEY, C.J., MOORE,.WALLER, and BURNETT, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|