Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligencetrialmalpracticesustainedduty of carejury instructions
plaintiffdefendantnegligencetrialmalpracticesustainedduty of carejury instructions

Related Cases

Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 502 P.2d 1, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505
View Case »
German v. Nichopoulos, 577 S.W.2d 197
View Case »
Harden by Harden v. Allstate Ins. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 190013
View Case »
Williams v. Spring Hill Memorial Hosp., 646 So.2d 1373
View Case »
Fall v. White, 449 N.E.2d 628
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sisson By and Through Allen v. Elkins, 801 P.2d 722, 1990 OK 123

Facts

Carmen Sisson was born with a congenital heart defect requiring multiple corrective surgeries. After undergoing a Rastelli procedure at age four, which involved implanting an artificial conduit, she experienced complications ten years later that necessitated a Rastelli 'redo' surgery. During the procedure, Dr. Elkins, the operating surgeon, accidentally cut into the conduit, leading to significant hemorrhage and resulting in permanent brain damage due to reduced oxygen flow. The plaintiff alleged negligence based on specific actions taken by Dr. Elkins during the surgery.

Carmen Sisson was born with a congenital heart defect requiring multiple corrective surgeries. After undergoing a Rastelli procedure at age four, which involved implanting an artificial conduit, she experienced complications ten years later that necessitated a Rastelli 'redo' surgery.

Issue

Did the trial court err in refusing to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction, and were the jury instructions regarding the duty of care for both nonspecialist and specialist physicians appropriate?

Did the trial court err in refusing to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction, and were the jury instructions regarding the duty of care for both nonspecialist and specialist physicians appropriate?

Rule

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in medical malpractice cases only if the plaintiff establishes three foundational facts: (1) the plaintiff sustained injury; (2) the injury was proximately caused by an instrumentality solely within the control of the defendant; and (3) the injury does not ordinarily occur absent negligence on the part of the defendant.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in medical malpractice cases only if the plaintiff establishes three foundational facts: (1) the plaintiff sustained injury; (2) the injury was proximately caused by an instrumentality solely within the control of the defendant; and (3) the injury does not ordinarily occur absent negligence on the part of the defendant.

Analysis

The court found that while the first two foundational facts were established, there was no evidence to support the third fact—that the injury was of a type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. The plaintiff's expert admitted that major bleeds can occur without negligence, and thus the court concluded that the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur. Additionally, the court determined that the instructions regarding the duty of care for both nonspecialist and specialist physicians were not contradictory and did not constitute reversible error.

The court found that while the first two foundational facts were established, there was no evidence to support the third fact—that the injury was of a type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction was appropriate and that the jury instructions were adequate.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the refusal to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction was appropriate and that the jury instructions were adequate.

Who won?

Dr. Elkins prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for the application of res ipsa loquitur and that the jury instructions were appropriate.

Dr. Elkins prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for the application of res ipsa loquitur and that the jury instructions were appropriate.

You must be