Castillo v. Stevens

Trial court did not err in granting defendant-physician’s motion for directed verdict in plaintiff-patient’s medical malpractice claim, where plaintiff alleged in her informed consent claim that defendant failed to provide her with sufficient information regarding risks of surgery on her leg, and where plaintiff failed to present any expert testimony that defendant failed to comply with applicable standard of care in advising plaintiff of risks of said procedure, or that disclosures that defendant had provided to plaintiff failed to comply with said standard of care. Appellate Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that expert testimony is required only to establish applicable standard of care. Also, trial court did not err in indicating to plaintiff that she would have to pay some money to defendant to reimburse defense counsel for expenses incurred in attending California evidence deposition of plaintiff’s expert taken days before scheduled trial if plaintiff wanted said expert to appear live at trial, since: (1) record reflected that plaintiff was never formally ordered to pay defendant anything; and (2) plaintiff failed to show any prejudice by her inability to have expert testify live. Too, trial court erred in allowing defendant to question plaintiff’s physician as to whether syphilis could be source of plaintiff’s pain, where plaintiff was never diagnosed with said condition, since said error related only to plaintiff’s damages claim, and jury never considered such evidence because it held for defendant on issue of liability.