James v. Wormuth
N.Y. 2013 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to a medical malpractice claim when a surgeon intentionally leaves a foreign object in a patient as an exercise of professional medical judgment; in such cases, the plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish a deviation from the accepted standard of care.
Facts:
- In October 2004, a guide wire inserted into Marguerite James to assist with a lung biopsy became dislodged.
- During the procedure, Dr. David Wormuth was unable to locate the dislodged wire after a 20-minute manual search.
- Dr. Wormuth exercised his professional judgment and decided to end the surgery, intentionally leaving the wire inside James, believing it was safer than prolonging the procedure.
- Dr. Wormuth informed James after the surgery that he could not find the wire and had decided to leave it in place.
- James subsequently complained of significant pain, which she attributed to the wire.
- Approximately two months later, Dr. Wormuth performed a second operation using a special X-ray machine and successfully located and removed the wire.
Procedural Posture:
- Marguerite James sued Dr. David Wormuth and his practice in New York Supreme Court (the trial court) for medical malpractice.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case during a jury trial, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.
- James, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal in a 3-2 decision, with Dr. Wormuth as appellee.
- James appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to a medical malpractice claim where a surgeon intentionally leaves a guide wire in a patient based on their professional judgment, thereby relieving the plaintiff of the need to present expert testimony on the standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Rivera, J.
No, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply. When a doctor's intentional decision to leave a foreign object is based on professional judgment, a plaintiff must present expert testimony to prove a deviation from the accepted standard of medical care. The court reasoned that res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence from the event itself, applies in foreign object cases only when the object is unintentionally left in a patient. Here, the plaintiff's case centered on Dr. Wormuth's intentional choice to leave the wire, which he testified was a professional judgment call to avoid greater risk to the patient. Evaluating the reasonableness of such a medical judgment is beyond the 'common knowledge of lay persons' and requires expert testimony to establish the standard of care. Because the plaintiff failed to present any expert testimony showing that Dr. Wormuth's decision deviated from accepted medical practice, she failed to establish a prima facie case of malpractice. Furthermore, even if the claim were about the wire's initial dislodgment, the plaintiff failed to prove the 'exclusive control' element of res ipsa loquitur, as other medical personnel handled the wire.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in medical malpractice cases involving foreign objects. It establishes a critical distinction between unintentionally leaving an object (like a sponge), where negligence can be inferred, and intentionally leaving an object based on a contemporaneous medical judgment. The ruling reinforces the general principle that challenging a physician's professional judgment requires expert testimony, thereby preventing plaintiffs from using res ipsa loquitur as a way to bypass this evidentiary burden in such circumstances. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in cases where a doctor can articulate a medical reason for their actions, even if the outcome was negative, without securing supporting expert opinions.
Unlock the full brief for James v. Wormuth