§ 27-2 Medical Malpractice - Standard of Care of a Physician

• Library: South Carolina Requests to Charge - Civil (SCBar) (2016 Ed.)

§ 27-2 Medical Malpractice - Standard of Care of a Physician

In this case we are dealing with a special type of negligence. It is a medical malpractice case. So you will take the general definition of negligence or carelessness and put it into the proper perspective as I specifically now define for you and give you the law as it relates to malpractice.

Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence that consists of not applying to the exercise of the practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions and in like surrounding circumstances.

In a case of this nature, negligence is the failure to do that which an ordinarily careful and prudent physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] would do under the circumstances shown by the evidence to have existed at the time in question; or it is the doing of that which an ordinary, careful and prudent physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] would not have done under the existing circumstances.

Negligence on the part of a physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] has been said to consist in doing something they should not have done or omitting to do something they should have done, or their failure to exercise the required degree of care, skill and diligence.

I charge you negligence on the part of a physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] is not presumed, but must be affirmatively proved. I told you earlier the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove the case by the preponderance or the greater weight of the evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed a physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] has discharged his duty in full to the patient, including the exercise of reasonable care and skill in their treatment.

The burden rests upon the plaintiff in this case to prove the defendant was negligent. Such burden cannot be met by relying upon the theory the thing speaks for itself or that the very fact of injury indicates negligence. In other words, the fact the plaintiff may have sustained an injury does not mean the defendant was negligent.

The law does not require of a physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] absolute accuracy either in practice or judgment. The law does not hold a physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] to the standard of infallibility, nor does it require of him the utmost degree of care and skill of which the human mind is capable. But the law does require, while in the exercise of his function that he shall exercise that degree of knowledge, care, and skill ordinarily possessed by members of his profession in good standing.

A physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] is liable to his patients for a failure to exercise requisite skill and care. That means a physician [cardiologist, dermatologist, surgeon, etc.] must possess that reasonable degree of...