Mitchell v. Shikora

Summary

Justice Donohue's concurring and dissenting opinion addresses the admissibility of evidence concerning the known risks and complications of medical procedures in a medical negligence action. The opinion agrees that such evidence may be admissible in limited circumstances when it assists in establishing the standard of care, but concludes that the bowel-injury risk evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible in this routine laparoscopic hysterectomy malpractice case.

Holdings

1. Known-risk and complication evidence may be admissible in a medical negligence action in limited and discrete circumstances when it establishes or explains the applicable standard of care.
2. The known-risk evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible because it did not assist in determining whether the surgeons complied with the applicable standard of care.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence that a patient's injury was a known risk or complication of a medical procedure was relevant and admissible in this medical negligence action.
2. Whether evidence of known risks and complications is admissible only when it assists in establishing or explaining the applicable standard of care.

Disposition

affirmed