Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Courts Blogs -> Law Library Letter

State Courts

: Law Library Letter

Summary 2009 WY 64

Summary of Decision issued May 13, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Piña v. Christensen, MD

Citation: 2009 WY 64

Docket Number: S-07-0295

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellants Piña: James E. Fitzgerald of the Fitzgerald Law Firm, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Christensen: Scott P. Klosterman of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: The Piñas brought an action against Dr. Christensen for medical malpractice. The Piñas appeal arguing the jury instructions misled the jury as to the appropriate standard of care.

Propriety of challenged instruction: The jury instruction at issue was: ?Before you find that Dr. Christensen was negligent in his care and treatment of Mrs. Piña, you must first find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he failed to act in accordance with the standard of care adhered to by the American Board of Urology.? The Piñas argued the instruction was erroneous because it required them to submit proof of written, clear-cut standards of care adopted by the American Board of Urology and alleged on appeal the Board did not have any such written standards.
The statute was a correct statement of law reflecting the legislative directive that a medical specialist should be held to national standards of care and treatment appropriate to the specialty. Nothing in the statutory language suggests a national board must adhere to written, clear-cut standards of care. Given the evidence at trial and the jury instructions as a whole, the Court did not believe the jury was confused as to the applicable standard of care. The Court stated that a jury instruction quoting § 1-12-601 does not provide the same clarity as instructions based on Wyoming Civil Pattern Jury Instructions 14.02 and 14.03.

Conclusion: Under the specific facts of the case, the district court did not err in giving the objected to jury instruction. However, the use of the instruction is disfavored.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ouuw4o .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Full post as published by Law Library Letter on May 13, 2009 (boomark / email).