And they often get these “other causes” into evidence

A recent Court of Appeals case came out reversing a trial court’s decision for a couple of reasons (you can download the decision for yourself here: James Needham, Appellant v. Sheryl Dreyer, Et Al, Respondents). One of those reasons is the topic of this blog post.

The trial involved a patient who had lost both of his legs due to frostbite. The reason for the frostbite, he alleged, was because his doctor didn’t address the breathing issues he presented with a few days earlier.

The patient’s position was: had the defendant (a doctor and his clinic) provided him with reasonable care, he would have been treated for his pneumonia. Because his complaints were not addressed, he collapsed alone in a friend’s cabin. When he was found, he had suffered such serious frostbite that his legs needed to be amputated.

The patient filed a lawsuit, and both sides developed their respective theories of what happened, including whether the doctor and clinic provided appropriate care or not, and if not, what that caused.

The defendants learned that, on the day he collapsed, the patient had drunk alcohol (three drinks). The defendants pounced on this, attempting to introduce at trial that a possible cause of his collapsing in the cabin was this drinking.

As you might imagine, such evidence might prejudice a jury against the patient, even if alcohol had nothing to do with his collapse.

The trial court judge decided the jury could hear the evidence, they did, and eventually the jury found against the patient.

This Appeals Court just decided that the trial court judge was wrong to let this evidence in. Why?

Because the defendants offered no testimony from any expert witnesses of what the patient’s drinking had to do with anything. There was no evidence the patient was inebriated, and no evidence it had anything to do with his collapse. It was entirely speculative to say the alcohol had anything to do with the patient’s collapse and subsequent frostbite.

Of course, the attorneys for the defendants must do their jobs, which is to win. And if you can convince a judge to allow this evidence in, that’s not the attorney’s problem. And of course, it only helps their case prejudicing the jury against the patient.

Plaintiffs in medical negligence case must deal with issues like these routinely. Smoke pot a month before a hospitalization where you were the victim of medical negligence? Had an abortion? Is there evidence in your medical record of ever refusing to follow a doctor’s advice? You can be sure the attorneys representing the defendant health care providers will try to find any way they can to get that in front of the jury. Even if it has nothing to do with the claim at issue.

It has been my experience that, in the vast majority of cases I’ve handled, the other side will either explicitly or implicitly blame the patient for his or her injuries, even when that blame is for conduct that had nothing to do with the substance of the lawsuit.

And if they are allowed to do this, a victim of medical malpractice must appeal to a higher court, hope to be successful, and then have the case heard all over again (with the resulting increased costs and delay).

Sound fun? I have never represented a client who wanted to have a viable claim for medical malpractice. That means that the harm was so bad, the outcome so tragic, that it’s worth all of the risk, financial cost, and emotional cost, of litigation.