Court Opinion

ID: 9542664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:09.168271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:37.312686
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the court’s dispositions of the numerous and complex issues presented by this appeal with the exception of the majority’s construction of AS 09.55.540.
AS 09.55.540(a) provides, in part:
In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a physician . . . the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving (1) the degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by physicians practicing the same specialty in similar communities to that in which the defendant practices; . . .
The relevant legislative committee report expressly states that AS 09.55.540(a) “ . . . attempts to codify the law with respect to the burden of proof in medical malpractice actions . . .1 The report makes no reference to the standard of care to which physicians are to be held. Thus, I find I am in agreement with appellant Poulin’s position that this statute treats only the subject of burden of proof in malpractice litigation. Even if AS 09.55.540 is construed to embody standards of care, I think it should be read as only providing minimum standards and that a plaintiff should be able to prove, and the jury to consider, that a higher degree of actual skill and knowledge was possessed by a particular physician which in turn could result in that physician being held to a more stringent standard of care.
The crux of my disagreement with the court’s opinion centers on the majority’s assertion that “The language of AS 09.55.-540 takes into account this ‘objective’ higher standard for specialists with the proviso that the standard be based on ‘physicians practicing the same specialty in similar communities.’ ” Appellant Poulin correctly urges that doctors with special skills must be held to account for those special skills. In accord with this argument is Professor Prosser who suggests that “ . . . a physician who is possessed of unusual skill or knowledge must use care which is reasonable in light of his *277special ability and information . . . . ” and adds that “ . . . the care required is still only the ordinary care of a reasonable man, assuming he has such special knowledge.” 2
Given my belief that AS 09.55.540 pertains to burdens of proof in malpractice litigation, and even if AS 09.55.540 is held to establish standards of care, these standards are minimal standards, I conclude that Poulin’s requested instruction pertaining to the standard of care flowing from a physician’s greater degree of skill or superior knowledge should have been given.3

. House Judiciary Committee Report on Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 142, amended, House Journal p. 492, March 20, 1967.

. W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th ed. 1961), § 32, at 161, 162, n. 30. See also Restatement of Torts (Second) § 289, comment (m) and § 299A, comment (d). Cf. Gerkin v. Brown & Sehler Co., 177 Mich. 45, 143 N.W. 48 (1913).

. This requested instruction read:
A physician may be possessed with a greater degree of skill, knowledge or intelligence than other physicians practicing in the same specialty in similar communities. In such a case the physician is required to use whatever superior knowledge, skill and intelligence he has and the failure to do so will render him liable for injury to the patient.