Most physicians and medical practitioners are familiar with the legal phrase “reasonable person” – a person may be negligent if they did not act as a reasonable person would have acted under the circumstances. But did you know that in medical malpractice cases, the plaintiff cannot make a “reasonable person” argument against the doctor? And if they try, your defense can stop them cold.
In Davis v. Armacost, a recently reported opinion, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals ruled that doctors are not held to the “reasonable person” standard. Instead, because of their specialized education, training and skills, doctors must be held to the standard of a “reasonably competent health care provider engaged in similar practice and acting in similar circumstances.”In other words, it is legally improper – and reversible error – for the jury to consider the conduct of a reasonable person, as opposed to that of a reasonably competent health care provider, in a medical malpractice case.
What does this mean for your defense? Jury instructions should be considered carefully in every case. If a judge instructs a jury improperly, a strong objection and request for a curative instruction and/or mistrial protects your client at the trial level and preserves important points for appeal.
If you have any questions about this important case or other medical-legal issues, we are always here to help. Please contact us.