On March 17, defendant evaluated plaintiff's left foot and observed a severe external rotation. Defendant recommended that plaintiff have an operation to correct this rotational deformity. In September 1987, a tibial osteotomy, performed in Burlington by another orthopedic surgeon, corrected the rotational deformity. In August 1988, plaintiff had a further operation to remove from his leg the hardware required for the first operation. Plaintiffs sued defendant for medical malpractice.
Plaintiffs appeal, and defendant cross-appeals.
When reviewing the grant of a j.n.o.v. The grant of a j.n.o.v. is improper if there is any evidence that fairly and reasonably supports the nonmoving party's claim. Plaintiffs are entitled to every reasonable inference that may be drawn from the evidence. The principal issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs introduced sufficient evidence fairly and reasonably tending to prove that defendant breached the standard of care proximately causing the injury. That as a proximate result of this lack of knowledge or skill or the failure to exercise this degree of care the plaintiff suffered injuries that would not otherwise have been incurred.