Kordas v. Sugarbaker

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment for the defendant physician in a medical malpractice action arising from a second-look surgery. The court held that the trial court properly gave the bad-result jury instruction and admitted defense expert testimony regarding the national standard of care for specialized surgical procedures.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly gave the bad-result instruction because the instruction generally may be given in medical-negligence cases and does not direct a verdict for the defendant.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony from defense experts who were board-certified general surgeons and also specialists in the type of second-look operation at issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by giving the District of Columbia bad-result medical-negligence jury instruction.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting defense expert testimony concerning the national standard of care when the experts were general surgeons with additional specialization in the relevant procedure.

Disposition

affirmed