In a Washington medical malpractice case, the trial judge instructed the jury, in part, as follows:
“A physician does not guarantee the results of his or her care and treatment. A poor medical result is not, by itself, evidence of negligence.”
Jury Instruction 9.
“A physician is not liable for selecting one of two or alternative courses of treatment, if, in arriving at the judgment to follow the particular course of treatment, the physician exercised reasonable care and skill within the standard of care the heath care provider was obliged to follow.”
Jury Instruction 12.
The Washington medical malpractice jury returned a defense verdict, and the plaintiff subsequently appealed, arguing in part that it was error to provide the jury with Jury Instructions 9 and 12.
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division I, stated in its October 28, 2024 Opinion: “Whether to issue a no guarantee-poor result jury instruction is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. The instruction is appropriately given when it is used to supplement a proper standard of care instruction and it serves the purpose of reminding jurors that medicine is an inexact science in which the desired results cannot be guaranteed … That a bad result “by itself” does not establish negligence is a correct statement of the law, as the law was given to the jury by the trial judge. It was within the trial court’s discretion to give jury instruction 9 as a supplement to the standard of care instruction given.”
The Court of Appeals of Washington stated with regard to the exercise of judgment instruction that the instruction “applies only where there is evidence that in arriving at a judgment, “the physician or surgeon exercised reasonable care and skill, within the standard of care he [or she] was obliged to follow.” Secondly, its application will ordinarily be limited to situations where the doctor is confronted with a choice among competing therapeutic techniques or among medical diagnoses … the exercise of judgment instruction is proper when the record contains conflicting medical expert testimony as to whether the physician defendant’s choice of treatment was consistent with the standard of care … the purpose for giving such an instruction—and the reason for clarification—is that it provides “ ‘useful watchwords to remind judge and jury that medicine is an inexact science where the desired results cannot be guaranteed, and where professional judgment may reasonably differ as to what constitutes proper treatment.’ ”
” Accordingly, the instruction on the exercise of judgment principle reminds the jury that, in the circumstance of the treatment of a patient for an uncertain condition that requires a choice between competing courses of treatment (or diagnoses), a physician who chooses a less wise course of action from among the available courses of action (both or all of which were consistent with the standard of care) is not liable for making that less wise choice, so long as the choice adopted was consistent with the standard of care … in order to be issued to the jury at trial, each instruction requires that the trial record contain evidence that the person at issue was confronted with a choice between competing courses of action and evidence that the choice made between those available courses was consistent with the standard of care. In addition, with regard to both instructions, when there is conflicting testimony as to whether the instruction should be issued, it is appropriate for the trial court to do so.”
“To sum up, the exercise of judgment instruction may be given when there is proof that a physician was confronted with a choice between competing diagnoses or methods of treatment, each or all of which would be consistent with the standard of care, and proof that the choice made by the physician among those competing options was consistent with the standard of care. Affirmative evidence that the physician’s reasoning underlying that choice was consistent with that standard is not required.”
The Court of Appeals of Washington held: “The combination of the general standard of care instruction plus the two properly issued supplemental instructions did not constitute an overemphasis in the whole of the jury instructions. The issuance of these instructions did not constitute an improper judicial comment on the evidence and did not deny Beard a fair trial.”
Source Beard v. Everett Clinic PLLC, No. 85208-6-I.
If you or a loved one may have been injured as a result of medical negligence in Washington or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Washington 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 here to 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.
