McPherson-Corder v. Chinkhota

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a $200,000 judgment in a medical malpractice action arising from the loss of a patient's testicle after delayed treatment for testicular torsion. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving a missing-witness instruction because the defendant had peculiarly available access to a medical assistant student who could have provided material, noncumulative testimony about the examination and warnings given. The court also rejected challenges to the physician-duty-to-warn instruction and alleged judicial partiality.

Holdings

1. A missing-witness instruction may be given when the absent witness is peculiarly available to the opposing party and the witness's testimony is likely to elucidate the transaction; once those criteria are met, the trial court has discretion to give the instruction. The trial court properly instructed the jury in this case.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving a separate instruction on a physician's duty to warn because the plaintiff's theory was supported by evidence, including expert testimony that Dr. Corder should have recognized the possibility of intermittent torsion.
3. The trial judge's questioning of witnesses, prompting of additional foundation, and evidentiary rulings did not demonstrate partiality warranting reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving a missing-witness instruction permitting the jury to infer that an absent witness's testimony would have been unfavorable to Dr. Corder.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving a separate instruction concerning a physician's duty to warn a patient of dangers to which the patient might be exposed.
3. Whether the trial judge's questioning of witnesses, prompting of foundation for the missing-witness instruction, and evidentiary rulings demonstrated impermissible partiality.

Disposition

affirmed