Opinion ID: 1964773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Medical Negligence Instruction

Text: The final issue raised by Green is an assertion that the trial judge's instruction to the jury that there is no local standard of care is an inaccurate statement of the law. In the course of cross-examining St. Francis Hospital's expert witness, Green's attorney questioned the witness' expertise on local standards of care. Because the parties had stipulated that the amended version of the applicable medical negligence statute would apply [23] without a locality requirement, the trial judge gave an instruction to the jury in response to the line of questions by Green's attorney. The trial judge stated Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me point out to you that [Green's attorney] is entitled to ask the witness questions about with whom she has consulted, including whether she's consulted with local medical authorities about standard of care. You should be aware, however, that there is no local standard of care. Green did not object to the instruction at the time it was given. Accordingly, the issue is waived on appeal unless it amounts to plain error. [24] Green contends that although the statement by the trial judge  that there is no local standard of care  is an accurate statement of the law, it is nonetheless confusing. According to Green, a reasonable juror might be misled into thinking that not only was there no locality requirement, but that in fact there was no standard of care. A party has an unqualified right to have the jury instructed with a correct statement of the substance of the law. [25] The instruction need not be perfect so long as it is reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication. [26] Reversal is only required where the error undermines the jury's ability to intelligently perform its duty. [27] The central issue in this case was a factual dispute over what had occurred and not the appropriate standard of care to be applied. Both parties acknowledged throughout the trial that there was a standard of care. In light of the expert testimony presented and the extensive arguments by the parties regarding the applicable standard of care, there is no reasonable basis in the record to conclude that the jury would have understood the trial judge's instruction to mean that there was no standard of care. Accordingly, reading the instructions as a whole, the trial judge's statement regarding the absence of a locality standard does not constitute plain error. [28]