 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hirahara v. Tanaka6/9/1998
nd was reasonably careful under the circumstances.... This is not the law. [The statutory standard of care] imposes an objective standard, and measures the defendant doctor's conduct against what a reasonable doctor would have done in the same or similar circumstances.... The message intended by the giving of the instruction--that a doctor may choose among several proper alternatives, even though the one chosen leads to an unfortunate result--is not self-evident.
Id. at 760.
In Hawai'i, "it is well settled that in medical malpractice actions, the question of negligence must be decided by reference to relevant medical standards of care[.]" Craft v. Peebles, 78 Hawai'i 287, 296, 893 P.2d 138, 149 (1995). The relevant standard of care is an objective one. The jury's analysis of a defendant physician's actions must be confined to a determination of whether his actions fell below this standard. Informing the jury that a physician is not negligent for utilizing his or her best judgment to choose among acceptable alternatives is unnecessary. The jury must focus on whether the physician breached the standard of care. His or her exercise of "best judgment" is superfluous to this determination.
Dr. Tanaka claims that the challenged instructions "instructed the jury that Dr. Tanaka's liability to [the Hiraharas] could not be decided on the basis of the success or failure of the operation." We disagree with Dr. Tanaka's interpretation. We do not, by this opinion, cast any doubts on the validity of a jury instruction that states that a physician is not an insurer of her patient's health and that a physician is not necessarily negligent simply because of an unfortunate result. We agree that " physician is not an insurer of the results of his diagnosis and treatment. The mere proof of an unfavorable result, without more, will not be enough to establish a physician's liability." David Louisell & Harold Williams, Medical Malpractice ยง 4.02 (1997). This is a separate and distinct issue from that considered herein and inapplicable to the present case.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Dr. Tanaka and remand for further proceedings.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|