Opinion ID: 2402307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instructions Standard of Care

Text: Before this Court, plaintiff assigns error to the trial justice's instruction concerning the standard of care that Dr. Stone owed to his patient. The plaintiff contends that the trial justice should have instructed the jury that when Dr. Stone, a neurologist, decided to perform the clinical correlation of plaintiff's adenoidal swelling, he assumed the duty of care of an otolaryngologist. According to plaintiff, after Dr. Stone concluded that the adenoidal swelling was insignificant and probably caused by viral illness, he was rendering care as an otolaryngologist and the jury should have evaluated defendant's care and treatment under the standard of care of an otolaryngologist. When formulating jury instructions, a trial justice need not adopt the specific language that the parties proposed, as long as the trial justice fulfills his or her obligation to charge the jury properly by framing the issues in such a way that the instructions `reasonably set forth all of the propositions of law that relate to material issues of fact which the evidence tends to support.' Morinville v. Old Colony Co-operative Newport National Bank, 522 A.2d 1218, 1222 (R.I.1987). It is well settled that this Court examines jury instructions in their entirety to ascertain the manner in which a jury of ordinarily intelligent lay people would have understood them. Parrella v. Bowling, 796 A.2d 1091, 1101 (R.I.2002) (quoting State v. Marini, 638 A.2d 507, 517 (R.I. 1994)). We do not examine single sentences or selective parts of the charge; rather, the challenged portions must be examined in the context in which they were rendered. Id. In this case, the trial justice's instruction concerning the applicable standard of care was a proper statement of the law. The trial justice instructed the jury as follows: In diagnosing, caring for and treating a patient, however, a physician is under a duty to use the same degree of skill and care that is commonly possessed by other members of the profession who are engaged in the same type of practice having due regard for the state of scientific knowledge at the time of treatment. (Emphasis added.) In Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital, 710 A.2d 161 (R.I.1998), this Court held that a physician is under a duty to use the degree of care and skill that is expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in the same class to which he or she belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances. Id. at 167. (Emphasis added.) Here, no evidence was presented at trial suggesting that Dr. Stone undertook the care of plaintiff as an otolaryngologist. Doctor Stone is a neurologist. The evidence in this case established that Dr. Stone, based on his examination of plaintiff and plaintiff's personal history, determined that the adenoidal swelling was insignificant. It was up to the jury to determine whether Dr. Stone was negligent. His skill and knowledge as a board-certified neurologist were relevant factors for the jury to consider in deciding whether his failure to refer plaintiff to a specialist comported with the standard of care. The trial justice correctly instructed the jury that Dr. Stone was under a duty to render the same degree of skill and care that is possessed by other physicians engaged in the same type of practice. In Parrella, 796 A.2d at 1100, this Court approved a nearly identical standard of care jury instruction in a medical malpractice case. [6] Accordingly, we are of the opinion that, when examined in light of the evidence in the record, the jury instructions were not erroneous.