Washington v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr. - 579 A.2d 177 (D.C. 1990)

Rule:

In a negligence action predicated on medical malpractice, the plaintiff must carry a tripartite burden, and establish: (1) the applicable standard of care; (2) a deviation from that standard by the defendant; and (3) a causal relationship between that deviation and the plaintiff's injury. Because these issues are distinctly related to some science, profession, or occupation, expert testimony is usually required to establish each of the elements, except where the proof is so obvious as to lie within the ken of the average lay juror.

Facts:

LaVerne Alice Thompson sustained brain damage during elective surgery from the allegedly improper administration of anesthesia. Plaintiff parent and plaintiff children filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against defendant Washington Hospital Center and its employees. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital on the plaintiffs’ claims for loss of consortium. The trial court also dismissed the claims against the defendant doctor without prejudice. Thus, the case proceeded to the jury on Thompson’s personal injury claim and her husband's loss of consortium claim against defendant hospital alone. The jury returned a verdict of $4.586 million to Thompson and $63,000 for her husband. Plaintiff parent and plaintiff children challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital on their claims for loss of consortium, arguing that the law denying loss of consortium to parents and children was anachronistic. Defendant hospital cross-appealed from the verdict entered against it. 

Issue:

1. Was the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital on plaintiffs’ claims for loss of consortium an error? 
2. Was it an error to hold defendant hospital liable for medical malpractice? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital on plaintiffs’ claims for loss of consortium. According to the court, it was bound by precedent holding such claims uncognizable in the District of Columbia. Anent the second issue, the court affirmed the verdict against defendant hospital on the issue of medical malpractice. The court noted that in a negligence action predicated on medical malpractice, the plaintiff must carry a tripartite burden, and establish: (1) the applicable standard of care; (2) a deviation from that standard by the defendant; and (3) a causal relationship between that deviation and the plaintiff's injury. Because these issues were distinctly related to some science, profession, or occupation, expert testimony was usually required to establish each of the elements. In this case, the court held that the testimony of plaintiffs' expert, when combined with other evidence on standard of care, was sufficient to create an issue for the jury. Moreover, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that there were no impermissible communications between plaintiffs' expert and the jurors.