Hamon v. Morris, M.D.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed summary judgment for an anesthesiologist in a medical malpractice action arising from a postoperative popliteal nerve block. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present competent expert testimony establishing a breach of the applicable standard of care and could not rely on res ipsa loquitur. The court also upheld summary judgment on the purported informed-consent claim because that claim was not asserted in the amended complaint and lacked proof of causation.

Holdings

1. A medical-malpractice plaintiff generally must present competent expert testimony establishing both the applicable standard of care and the defendant's breach when those matters are at issue. Hamon's experts did not establish how Morris failed to exercise the care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonable anesthesiologist, so summary judgment was proper.
2. Res ipsa loquitur was unavailable because the evidence did not support the inference that Morris's negligence was the only reasonable and legitimate explanation for the injury.
3. Hamon could not obtain relief on a lack-of-informed-consent claim because he did not assert that claim in his amended complaint or move to amend the complaint to add it.
4. Even assuming an informed-consent claim had been properly pleaded, Hamon failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation because he did not show that a reasonable person in his circumstances would have refused the nerve block if the risk of nerve injury had been disclosed.
5. Hamon could not rely on his notice of claim, screening certificate of merit, expert disclosure, or expected trial testimony to defeat summary judgment because those materials were not competent summary-judgment evidence under the applicable statutes and rules.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hamon presented sufficient expert testimony to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding breach of the applicable medical standard of care.
2. Whether Hamon could rely on res ipsa loquitur to establish medical negligence where the evidence identified multiple possible causes of the alleged injury.
3. Whether Hamon could obtain relief on an informed-consent theory that was not asserted as a cause of action in his amended complaint.
4. Whether, even if an informed-consent claim had been properly pleaded, Hamon presented evidence establishing causation under the objective reasonable-person test.
5. Whether the circuit court properly considered the evidentiary materials submitted in opposition to summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed