Boyce v. Brown
77 P.2d 455 (1938) (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Negligence by a physician or surgeon must be established by expert medical testimony that demonstrates a departure from the recognized standard of care in the community, unless the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layperson could recognize it without such testimony.
Facts:
- In September 1927, Dr. Edgar H. Brown performed surgery on Nannie E. Boyce's fractured ankle, permanently fixing the bone with a metal screw.
- Dr. Brown's professional services for the fracture concluded a few weeks after the surgery once the bone had healed.
- Seven years later, in November 1934, Boyce consulted Dr. Brown again, complaining of significant pain in the same ankle.
- Dr. Brown examined the ankle, wrapped it in adhesive tape, and filed an edge of an arch support Boyce was wearing.
- Boyce's ankle pain continued to worsen over the next two years.
- In January 1936, Boyce sought treatment from another physician, Dr. Kent, who took an X-ray of the ankle.
- The X-ray revealed bone necrosis around the surgical screw.
- Dr. Kent operated to remove the screw, after which Boyce made a full recovery.
Procedural Posture:
- Berlie B. Boyce and Nannie E. Boyce (plaintiffs) sued Dr. Edgar H. Brown (defendant) in the superior court (trial court) for medical malpractice.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' presentation of evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for an instructed verdict.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a medical malpractice action, is a physician's failure to take an X-ray of a painful ankle containing a surgical screw an act of negligence so grossly apparent that a layperson can recognize it without expert testimony establishing the community standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Lockwood, J.
No. The failure to take an X-ray is not negligence so grossly apparent that a layperson could recognize it; therefore, the standard of care and its breach must be established by expert medical testimony. To prevail in a malpractice claim, a plaintiff must affirmatively prove the standard of medical practice in the community and show that the defendant physician departed from it. This standard is typically established through expert medical testimony. The only exception is when the negligence is so grossly apparent that a layman would have no difficulty recognizing it. Here, the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Kent, testified that he personally would have taken an X-ray but did not testify that the failure to do so violated the accepted standard of care in the community. The court reasoned that while laypersons know X-rays are diagnostic tools, they are not qualified to determine when one is medically required, as a physician might reasonably suspect other causes for pain, such as arthritis. Because the plaintiffs failed to present expert testimony establishing the standard of care, they did not provide sufficient evidence for their case to go to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the critical role of expert testimony in medical malpractice litigation, reinforcing the high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs. By narrowly construing the 'grossly apparent negligence' exception, the court protects physicians from liability based on jury speculation about complex medical judgments. The ruling establishes that a difference of opinion between physicians—where one doctor testifies they would have chosen a different treatment—is insufficient to prove malpractice. A plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant's conduct fell below the required standard of care for the entire community of practitioners, not just one doctor's personal preference.
Unlock the full brief for Boyce v. Brown