Opinion ID: 2611854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Medical Malfeasance Instruction

Text: The trial court instructed the jury that: If you find that the defendants are liable for an injury to the plaintiff, they are also liable for any aggravation of such injury or additional injury caused by negligent medical or hospital treatment or case of such injury. Montalvo's Instruction No. 4. The City contends that the instruction was unwarranted and confusing. Instruction No. 4 states the blackletter law that negligent medical treatment is a foreseeable result of an injury. If an injury was legally caused by a defendant's negligence, the defendant can be held liable for subsequent negligent medical treatment for such injury (absent an intervening cause). See Prosser, supra, § 52, at 352 (an original wrongdoer may be liable for the additional harm inflicted by the negligent treatment of the victim by a physician); see also Gibo, 51 Haw. at 302, 459 P.2d at 200 (where a defendant's negligence causes injuries to a plaintiff and[,] because of the weakened or impaired physical condition[,] plaintiff suffers subsequent injuries, which are not brought about by the negligence of the plaintiff, or any efficient intervening cause, defendant's negligence is deemed to be the proximate cause of both the original and subsequent injuries.). At trial, the City objected to instruction No. 4 on the ground that it unduly confuses the jury ... because there's no showing that there was in fact any negligence on the part of the doctors in their treatment of Mr. Montalvo. Montalvo argues that the surgery was unnecessary and, apparently, that he underwent it based upon erroneous medical advice. [18] If, on retrial, the trial court determines that the evidence is sufficient to support this theory, then instruction No. 4 would be applicable because the erroneous diagnosis, resulting in the subsequent surgery, would have been a related accident that would not be apportionable.