Opinion ID: 173320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Trial on Medical Malpractice Claim

Text: The medical malpractice claim proceeded to trial. Based on the grant of summary judgment to Bender on the informed consent claim, Bender filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Braddock's testimony at trial. While not agreeing with the court's summary judgment ruling on the informed consent claim and expressly reserving her right to challenge it, Willis agreed Braddock's testimony was not admissible at trial. The court granted Bender's motion in limine. Willis requested a captain of the ship jury instruction which would have allowed Bender to be held liable for Dr. Kirk's negligence: Regardless of who employs or pays a nurse or an assisting surgeon or other member of the operating team who takes part in the performance of surgery or services incidental to such surgery, if, while engaged in any such service, the assisting surgeon, the nurse or other member of the operating team, is under the direction of the surgeon in charge, so as to be his temporary servant or agent, any negligence on the part of any such assisting person, occurring while the latter is under the surgeon's direction, is deemed in law to be the negligence of such surgeon. (R. Appellant's App. Vol. I at 314.) The court rejected the instruction. It did not provide explicit reasons for doing so but, based on its comments at the jury instruction conference, it appears the instruction was rejected because it lacked evidentiary support, i.e., there was no evidence showing anyone other than Bender was negligent. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Bender, finding [his] care of Marcy Willis [did not] violate[ ] the accepted standard of medical care expected of him as a general surgeon[.] (R. Appellee's Supp.App. at 1.)