The determination of recoverable damages is a key part of any medical malpractice trial. What is sometimes overlooked is the fact that the same care a plaintiff calls “negligent” may have also provided them some benefit; on occasion, even extending their life. At trial, jurors are instructed on how to calculate losses. The law may also require them to weigh proven benefits.
In one recent case we tried, for example, the plaintiff claimed that the decision to proceed with an organ transplant caused a serious infection. That same transplant, however, arguably prolonged the patient’s life. At trial, we offered:
(1) Expert testimony directly linking the transplant to a prolongation of the patient’s life;
and
(2) Evidence that prolongation of life was measurable (time in days, weeks or months).
Based upon that record, we requested the jury be instructed to consider both harm and benefit when determining damages. We proposed the following instruction, which was accepted by the Court:
“Where the same negligent act is found to have caused both harm and benefit, the law permits you to consider both in determining damages. In such cases, any damages awarded are to be offset by the benefits that resulted from the conduct.”
This is not a collateral-source argument, nor or a plea to excuse negligence entirely because “some good came from bad.” It’s a legally grounded reminder that the jury’s damages calculations must reflect both sides of the record. While the goal is always a defense verdict, if liability is found, the damages awarded should be fair and tied to evidence.
At Waranch & Brown, we’re skilled at establishing the foundation for this instruction, recognizing when it is appropriate, and persuading courts to give it — so jurors reach a fair, accurate determination of damages.
If you need assistance with a complex legal matter or want to discuss whether this instruction fits your case, our attorneys are here to help.