Title: Phinney v. Vinson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 91-148

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1992


 Robert L. Phinney and Evelyn E.   }          APPEALED FROM:
 Phinney                           }
                                   }
      v.                           }          Chittenden Superior Court
                                   }
                                   }
 Robert K. Vinson, M.D.            }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. S702-89CnC


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:


      Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment entered against them in a
 medical malpractice action.  They argue that an admission by defendant
 doctor was sufficient to avoid summary judgment on liability.  Defendant
 performed a transurethral resection of the prostate upon plaintiff Robert
 Phinney but recurring pain caused the need for another operation by a
 different doctor.  Following this operation, defendant allegedly said that
 the second doctor told him that he had performed an "inadequate resection"
 and he apologized to plaintiff "for his failure to do so."  Plaintiffs argue
 that this statement, without more, was sufficient evidence of liability to
 allow the case to go to trial.

      The elements of medical malpractice are set out in 12 V.S.A. { 1908.
 Under the statute, plaintiffs must prove:  (1) the requisite standard of
 care; (2) that defendant failed to exercise the applicable degree of care;
 and (3) as a proximate result of (2), plaintiffs suffered damages.  Begin v.
 Richmond, 150 Vt. 517, 520,