 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Likes v. Richland Correctional3/21/2005
res only common knowledge and experience to understand and judge it *." Bruni, supra, at 130.
{ } Here, plaintiff did not produce expert testimony on the issue of medical malpractice. The only medical testimony in this case was that of Dr. Williams, plaintiff's treating physician at RICI. Dr. Williams testified that in his opinion, plaintiff's condition was stable and slowly improving. Dr. Williams explained that serial laboratory tests showed plaintiff's viral load was decreasing and that his liver enzymes were not elevated. Thus, he concluded that plaintiff's body was mounting an immune response to the virus and, as such, no further treatment was indicated at that time other than periodic observations and blood tests. According to Dr. Williams, he would refer a patient for a GE consult if the viral load began to rise and the liver enzymes became elevated. He noted that approximately 20 to 30 percent of patients infected with Hepatitis C will be able to overcome the virus and have no detectable viral load in the blood. He opined that plaintiff's body was in the process of healing itself and that there was no need for a GE consult at the present time. Dr. Williams further opined that his treatment of plaintiff complied with the applicable standard of care.
{ } Although plaintiff argues that his medical condition is such that only common knowledge and experience are needed to understand it, the trier of facts disagrees. The testimony of Dr. Williams referenced such complex medical issues as viral load, immune response, liver enzymes, clotting factors, and the effects of dietary protein consumption on lab values. Based upon the totality of the evidence, the court concludes that the medical treatment provided to plaintiff met or exceeded the standard of care in the profession. The court further finds that defendant established a protocol for the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C and that protocol was followed appropriately with regard to plaintiff's care. Consequently, the court finds that Dr. Williams was not negligent when he elected not to order a GE consult. Plaintiff has failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence and, accordingly, judgment is recommended in favor of defendant.
{ } A party may file written objections to the magistrate's decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any finding or conclusion of law contained in the magistrate's decision unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3).
STEVEN A. LARSON Magistrate
|