Opinion ID: 1292623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the sufficiency of plaintiff's negligence allegation

Text: In his fourth amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that Dr. Porter    was negligent in the treatment of Plaintiff from December 1, 1977 through and including December 1, 1982, in one or more of the [following] particulars:       5. In failing to diagnose Plaintiff's cirrhosis of the liver. Defendants argue that this pleading is deficient. According to defendants, a mere failure to diagnose is not negligence.    [T]he failure to diagnose is only a bad result that is actionable only where it is caused by some departure from standards of due care. Defendants argue that plaintiff should have alleged how Dr. Porter was negligent, i.e., that Dr. Porter failed to perform a work-up conforming to the standard of care. They argue that plaintiff recognized the deficiency in his pleading when, during trial, he moved to amend to plead a defective work-up. The motion was denied. According to defendants, the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the trial court on evidence of facts (a defective `work-up') that plaintiff did not plead and recognized that he had to plead. Even if we assume that defendants are correct in their assertion that plaintiff's pleading is deficient, such assertion will not aid defendants here. The flaw in defendants' argument is that it runs afoul of ORCP 23 B. [5] Under that rule, a party may amend a pleading to conform to the evidence, thus raising an issue not raised by the pleading. A party may also amend to raise an issue tried by express or implied consent of the parties. Moreover, ORCP 23 B provides that failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial. Thus, a pleading for all practical and legal purposes is automatically [6] amended whenever an issue not raised by the pleading is tried by consent. [7] Here, plaintiff introduced testimony that Dr. Porter negligently failed to perform a work-up. Dr. Falkenstein, a gastroenterologist, testified that: (1) He was familiar with the standard of care of a reasonably careful practicing gastroenterology specialist; (2) Dr. Porter's conduct fell below the accepted standard of practice and care in several respects, such as the failure to initiate an orderly evaluation of potential digestive disease including but not limited to, liver disease; (3) diagnostic tests would have led to the uncovery [ sic ] of a liver disease; (4) the failure to begin testing caused a delay in diagnosing the cirrhosis; and (5) without the delay, the liver disease could have been halted [or] reversed. Defendants did not object to this testimony. By not objecting to Dr. Falkenstein's testimony, defendants, in the circumstances of this case, effectively consented to the trial of the allegation that Dr. Porter negligently failed to perform a work-up relating to the diagnosis of plaintiff's cirrhosis. As the Court of Appeals found, Dr. Falkenstein's testimony was some evidence to support the allegation. Accordingly, we turn to whether the evidence supported the verdict.