Fritts v. McKinne
934 P.2d 371 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patient's negligence that causes an initial injury is not relevant to the issue of subsequent medical negligence in the treatment of that injury and cannot be used to establish comparative negligence against the patient.
Facts:
- On February 20, 1990, David Fritts and a friend, David Manus, were drinking prior to a one-vehicle accident.
- The pickup truck they occupied crashed into a tree at approximately seventy miles per hour.
- As a result of the crash, Fritts sustained severe facial injuries, specifically a Lefort II fracture, and was hospitalized.
- On February 25, 1990, Fritts was scheduled for surgery to repair his facial fractures.
- Dr. Richard McKinne was tasked with performing a tracheostomy to assist Fritts's breathing during the main surgery.
- During the tracheostomy procedure, Dr. McKinne cut or ruptured Fritts's innominate artery, causing profuse bleeding.
- The surgery was halted, Fritts lost a major amount of blood, never regained consciousness, and died in the hospital three days later.
Procedural Posture:
- Beth Ann Fritts, the surviving spouse of the deceased, filed a wrongful death action against Dr. Richard McKinne in the trial court.
- Plaintiff Fritts filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of her husband's intoxication and substance abuse history, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- Over Plaintiff's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on the issue of the decedent's comparative negligence based on his actions causing the car accident.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant Dr. McKinne.
- The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Plaintiff Fritts appealed the judgment to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
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 negligence action, does a patient's negligence in causing the underlying injury that required medical treatment constitute comparative negligence in a subsequent medical malpractice claim against the treating physician?
Opinions:
Majority - Stubblefield, J.
No. A patient's negligence in causing the initial injury does not constitute comparative negligence in a subsequent medical malpractice claim. A physician may not avoid liability for negligent treatment by asserting that the patient’s injuries were originally caused by the patient’s own negligence. Patients who negligently injure themselves are nevertheless entitled to subsequent non-negligent medical treatment and an undiminished recovery if such care is not provided. The court reasoned that the cause of the automobile accident was a matter unrelated to the medical procedures and was therefore irrelevant to the question of whether Dr. McKinne met the appropriate standard of care. Introducing evidence of Fritts's intoxication and history of substance abuse was highly prejudicial and improperly shifted the jury's focus from the medical malpractice claim to the unrelated issue of fault for the car accident. While a patient's conduct during treatment (e.g., failure to follow instructions) can be relevant, conduct prior to seeking treatment that only caused the injury is not.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear and critical distinction between a patient's negligence causing an injury and a physician's subsequent negligence in treating that injury. It reinforces the principle that a healthcare provider's duty of care is not diminished by the patient's prior conduct. The decision serves as a significant barrier against defendants in medical malpractice cases introducing highly prejudicial but legally irrelevant evidence about a patient's lifestyle or the circumstances of their injury to sway a jury. It guides trial courts to use measures like limiting instructions or bifurcated trials to ensure that evidence relevant only to damages does not improperly influence the jury's determination of liability.
Unlock the full brief for Fritts v. McKinne