Patricia Hanger alleged that Dr. Allison L. Raines and Emergency Physicians of Tidewater, PLC negligently failed to treat
Hanger’s low blood sodium. Hanger maintained that it was this negligence which caused her to suffer a seizure, resulting in a traumatic brain injury from a fall. The defendants continuously asserted throughout trial that the fall could have been caused through other means.
A Virginia medical malpractice jury disagreed with the defendants and returned a $1.6 million verdict for Hanger. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court’s refusal of its jury instruction supporting its theory of the case was erroneous.
The defendants requested that the trial court provide the jury with the following jury instruction (proffered Instruction D): “If you believe from the evidence that the injury to Patricia Hanger might have resulted from either of two causes, for one of which Dr. Raines might have been responsible and for the other of which Dr. Raines was not responsible, and if you are unable to determine which of the two causes occasioned the injury complained of, then the plaintiff cannot recover.”
The Virginia Supreme Court stated in its April 4, 2024 opinion: “It is axiomatic that, if a jury cannot determine whether the cause of the injury was attributable to the defendant’s negligence or another cause, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant … Appellants’ evidence challenging Plaintiff’s theory of causation was properly before the jury. Not only was Instruction D a correct statement of law, as noted by the trial court in refusing the proffered instruction, but it was applicable to the facts presented during trial. There was more than a scintilla of evidence presented that another cause could have led to Hanger’s injury, including Celexa, HCTZ, or a mechanical trip and fall. Furthermore, the issuance of Instructions 20 and 21 does not remedy the error of refusing Instruction D. Instruction 20 provided the definition of proximate cause and Instruction 21 provided guidance for where there is more than one proximate cause of an injury. Instruction D provided the jury with a compulsory direction as to the appropriate verdict where the cause cannot be determined. Instruction D was not merely cumulative of the law provided in Instructions 20 and 21; rather, it provided an affirmative statement of the law relating to causation. Instruction D correctly stated the law and was supported by more than a scintilla of the evidence. Thus, the trial court’s failure to issue the jury instruction was reversable error and the Court of Appeals’ declination to rule on the matter was also error.”
Source Emergency Physicians of Tidewater, PLC v. Hanger, Record No. 230199.
If you or a loved one suffered harm as a result of medical negligence in Virginia or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Virginia medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
