Matheny v. Fairmont General Hospital, Inc.

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reviewed a medical malpractice action arising from Fairmont General Hospital’s alleged failure to diagnose and treat an existing hip infection. The court held that it was reversible error to instruct the jury both on the plaintiff’s burden of proof and on a presumption that the hospital acted without negligence, and that the instructions misstated the plaintiffs’ theory by requiring proof that the hospital caused the infection rather than its progression. The court reversed the judgment for the hospital and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. When a negligence jury charge includes the plaintiff's burden of proof, it is reversible error to also instruct the jury that the defendant is presumed to have acted in accordance with the applicable standard of care or duty.
2. A jury instruction is erroneous when it requires a medical-malpractice plaintiff to prove that the defendant caused an infection even though the plaintiff's theory is that the defendant negligently failed to diagnose and treat an existing infection, causing it to progress into a serious condition.
3. Counsel's argument that the plaintiff's failure to seek additional medical care was the proximate cause of the worsening condition was a proximate-cause argument, not a comparative-negligence defense, and the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it.
4. The circuit court did not err in answering the jury's question in open court that the hospital was not ultimately responsible if the jury found the doctor at fault under the instructions and circumstances presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether it was reversible error to instruct the jury both that the plaintiff bore the burden of proving negligence and that the hospital was presumed to have acted in accordance with the applicable standard of care.
2. Whether it was reversible error to instruct the jury that the hospital could be liable only if it caused Ronald Matheny's infection, rather than if its negligence caused an existing infection to progress into a serious abscess.
3. Whether Fairmont General's closing argument concerning Matheny's failure to seek additional treatment improperly asserted comparative negligence.
4. Whether the circuit court improperly answered the jury's question concerning whether the hospital was responsible for the doctor's fault.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded