Case Title: Jones v. Block

Citation: 171 Vt. 569, 762 A.2d 846

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Jones v. Block (99-336); 171 Vt. 569; 762 A.2d 846 

[Filed 16-Oct-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-336

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000

Laurie E. Jones	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Bennington Superior Court
                                       }	
Robert S. Block and 	               }
Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery, PC       }	DOCKET NO.75-2-96 Bncv

                                                Trial Judge: John P. Morrissey 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Laurie Jones appeals from the Bennington Superior Court's
  order granting the motion  of defendants Dr. Robert Block (defendant) and
  Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery, P.C. (OHS), for  judgment as a matter of law
  on counts I and II of her medical malpractice complaint.  On appeal, 
  plaintiff argues that she introduced enough evidence to get to the jury on
  those counts.  We agree and  reverse and remand.

       Plaintiff injured her neck in February 1992 and sought treatment first
  from her family doctor  and then from defendant.  At her first appointment
  with defendant, he reviewed her MRI scan, taken  in September 1992, and
  determined from it that she had ruptured a disk.  He recommended surgery, 
  and scheduled it for March 1993.  Prior to the surgery, however, plaintiff
  aggravated the injury when  she slipped on ice and fell.  She informed
  defendant of this, and he concluded that her injury now  involved the
  spinal cord.  Despite this conclusion, he did not order a new MRI and went
  forward as  scheduled with the surgery.  During the surgery, plaintiff
  suffered trauma to the spinal cord, resulting  in permanent neurological
  dysfunction diagnosed as Brown Sequard Syndrome.

       Plaintiff brought a four-count medical malpractice complaint against
  defendant and OCS,  defendant's professional corporation.  The first two
  counts alleged that defendant was negligent in  treating her and this
  negligence caused her permanent neurological dysfunction.  The second count 
  sought damages from OCS based on respondeat superior.  The third and fourth
  counts claimed  liability because of lack of informed consent to the
  surgical procedure.  The first two counts were  dismissed when the court
  granted judgment as a matter of law to defendant and OCS on these counts. 
  The third and fourth counts went to the jury, which rendered a verdict for
  defendants.

       A judgment as a matter of law may be granted if "a party has been
  fully heard on an issue and  there is no legally sufficient evidentiary
  basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that 

 

  issue."  V.R.C.P. 50(a)(1).  When applying this standard, we view the
  evidence in the light most  favorable to the nonmoving party and exclude
  the effect of any modifying evidence.  See Haynes v.  Golub Corp., 166 Vt.
  228, 233,