eNotes: Liability – May 2024 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Emergency Physicians of Tidewater, PLC v. Hanger
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 230199

Decided: April 4, 2024

A party is not required to argue the specific grounds and relevant facts for a jury instruction at the time it is offered in order to preserve the challenge for appeal.

Background

Plaintiff presented to the emergency room in March 2017 for complaints of abdominal pain. She was given medication for the pain and numerous tests were ordered. The tests revealed that her blood sodium was low, a condition known as hyponatremia. Plaintiff alleges that the doctor did not inform her of her blood sodium levels or otherwise treat her hyponatremia. Later that month, Plaintiff’s husband found her on the floor bleeding from a head wound. When admitted to the hospital, her blood sodium was low. She was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and suffered cognitive difficulties. Plaintiff alleged that the reason for her fall was hyponatremia. Defendants argued that their actions complied with the standard of care and that other factors may have been responsible for her fall, including the possibility that she tripped and fell.

During the discussion on jury instructions, the Trial Court stated that there are alleged multiple proximate causes of Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants proffered the following jury instruction: “If you believe from the evidence that the injury to Patricia Hanger might have resulted from either of two causes, for one of which Dr. Raines might have been responsible and for the other of which Dr. Raines was not responsible, and if you are unable to determine which of the two causes occasioned the injury complained of, then the plaintiff cannot recover.” The Trial Court denied the instruction, and a jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals examined whether Defendants waived their challenge to the denial of the jury instruction and whether it can be addressed on appeal.

Holding

The Court examined whether a party must argue the specific grounds and relevant facts for a jury instruction at the time it is offered to preserve the challenge for appeal. The Court found that the party need not expressly articulate the evidentiary basis for a jury instruction, as the jury has already heard the evidence. The jury can evaluate the evidence presented and apply it to the jury instruction. Here, Defendants had previously presented evidence, including expert testimony, that a multitude of factors could have caused the Plaintiff’s fall. At the time the instruction was proffered, Defendants were not required to restate the evidence to preserve the matter for appeal. The case was remanded to the trial court.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicolette DeFrank at (571) 470-0395 or ndefrank@tthlaw.com.