 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schliep v. Providence Yakima Medical Center11/15/2005
The plaintiffs here appeal from an adverse jury verdict in their medical malpractice suit. They assign error to a number of the judge's rulings and her failure to instruct. But we conclude that all of these rulings easily fall within the judge's discretion. And we therefore affirm the judgment entered following the jury's verdict.
FACTS
Kithrena and Jerry Schliep sued Bonnie Kultgen, ARNP; Dr. Jaspal Sidhu; Dr. Matthew E. Seaman; and Yakima Emergency Physicians, Inc., for medical negligence. The Schlieps claim they failed to timely diagnose a condition called papilledema and a condition called pseudotumor cerebri. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
DISCUSSION
No Guarantee/Poor Result
The court here gave the jury two preliminary 'no guarantee/poor result' instructions. The instructions were read separately -- one for a physician and one for a registered nurse practitioner. And it read the instructions before any evidence was introduced. The court also gave the jury two separate standard of care instructions for physicians and nurse practitioners.
The Schlieps argue that this was error for several reasons. First, the preliminary instructions were not necessary to provide the jury with a context for the case. The instructions instead 'permit{ted} the jury to start forming opinions and applying law to the facts throughout the case.' Appellant's Br. at 13. Next, the court repeated the 'no guarantee/poor result' instructions several times. The instruction was given twice (one for a doctor and one for a nurse) before any evidence was presented. The instructions were then combined and read at the end of the case. And this, they argue, placed undue emphasis on the instructions. The Schlieps further argue that the instructions became a comment on the evidence.
So long as jury instructions correctly state the law, we will defer to the trial judge on such things as the specific wording, the order in which the instructions are given, and when the instructions are read. State v. Harris, 97 Wn. App. 865, 870, 989 P.2d 553 (1999).
A trial court may provide preliminary jury instructions that explain each of the parties' claims and defenses. 6 Washington Pattern Jury Instructions: Civil 1.01.03 (5th ed. 2005) (WPI). They provide the jury with some context to interpret the evidence. WPI 1.01.03 note on use.
And the court may include a 'no guarantee/poor result' instruction in a medical negligence case. Christensen v. Munsen, 123 Wn.2d 234, 248, 867 P.2d 626 (1994); Watson v. Hockett, 107 Wn.2d 158, 164, 727 P.2d 669 (1986). ''{N}o guarantee' and '{poor} result' instructions state well nigh universally recognized principles of medical malpractice law.' Hockett, 107 Wn.2d at 163. The instruction must, however, supplement a proper standard of care instruction. Munsen, 123 Wn.2d at 248. That was done here, and so the 'no guarantee/poor result' instructions were permissible. They supplemented the standard of care instructions. Id.; WPI 1.01.03.
A court must not repeat and overlap an instruction so that it favors one party over another. Samuelson v. Freeman, 75 Wn.2d 894, 897, 454 P.2d 406 (1969). But the repetition must be extreme. Adcox v. Children's Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 Wn.2d 15, 38, 864 P.2d 921 (1993); Freeman, 75 Wn.2d at 897. We do not find that here. The court read the instruction once for a physician and once for a registered nurse practitioner in the preliminary instructions. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 207-08. A combined instruction was then given only once at the end of the trial. CP at 34. This is not the extreme repetition condemned in Freeman or Adcox
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|