An Example of a Negligence Case

• Author: Eric E. Johnson
• Pages: 55-72

55

4. An Example of a Negligence

Case

In the following case, you will be able to see how tort law works

within a structure made of causes of action, elements, and affirmative

defenses. The case does a great job, as well, of showing the different

roles of the judge and the jury. It also shows the common-law

method at work – past decisions being applied as precedent to help

decide a new case presenting different facts.

Georgetown v. Wheeler

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

September 19, 2013

__ A.3d __, 2013 WL 5271567. PRESIDENT and

DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE, et al.,

Appellants, v. Crystal WHEELER, Appellee. Nos. 12–CV–671,

12–CV–672. Before WASHINGTON, Chief Judge,

BLACKBURNE–RISGBY, Associate Judge, and BELSON,

Senior Judge.

Senior Judge JAMES BELSON:

This is an appeal by a hospital and a physician from a large

judgment against them in a medical malpractice case. Appellee

Crystal Wheeler suffered various medical complications as the

result of a Rathke’s cleft cyst behind her left eye, which went

undetected for nearly ten years despite its appearance on a 1996

MRI report. Wheeler brought a medical-malpractice suit against

the appellants, Marilyn McPherson-Corder, M.D., and the

President and Directors of Georgetown College

(“Georgetown”), claiming that their negligence caused the cyst

to go undiscovered. Following a lengthy trial in Superior Court,

a jury awarded Wheeler more than $2.5 million in damages. Dr.

McPherson-Corder and Georgetown now appeal, making four

arguments: (1) the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent,

in that it found that the appellants’ negligent failure to detect the

cyst was a proximate cause of Wheeler’s injuries, but also found

56

that Wheeler’s own failure to follow up on the 1996 MRI report,

while negligent, was not a proximate cause; (2) the trial court

erred by admitting Wheeler’s proffered expert testimony, as her

experts’ conclusion that her cyst caused certain gastrointestinal

problems has not been generally accepted in the medical

scientific community; (3) Wheeler’s counsel made improper and

prejudicial statements during her closing argument; and (4) the

jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

We reject the appellants’ first argument because they waived

their objection to any alleged inconsistency by failing to raise the

issue before the jury’s dismissal. We find their second argument

lacking, as it misstates our standard for the admission of expert

testimony. We likewise find their third argument unpersuasive,

as we see no impropriety in Wheeler’s counsel’s remarks. We do,

however, find merit in one aspect of appellant’s argument on

the weight of the evidence, i.e., insofar as it relates to the jury’s

award of greater future medical costs than the evidence

established. Because the jury awarded $19,450 more than the

record supports, we remand with instructions that the trial court

amend its order to reduce the award in that amount. In all other

respects, we affirm.

I.

Wheeler has long suffered from a litany of health problems,

including serious gastrointestinal difficulties. At several times in

her youth, she was hospitalized due to extreme nausea and

vomiting. These problems persisted throughout her adolescence,

and have lasted well into her adult life.

In 1996, Wheeler began attending college in southern Virginia.

When she returned home to Washington, D.C., the following

summer, she complained of severe headaches to her then-

pediatrician, Dr. Marilyn McPherson-Corder. Accordingly, Dr.

McPherson-Corder referred her to a Georgetown University

Hospital pediatric neurologist, Dr. Yuval Shafrir.

Dr. Shafrir saw Wheeler twice that summer, once on July 8, and

again on August 5. During the first visit, Wheeler was also

experiencing leg and ear pain. Because of these other maladies,