(Download) "Alma D. Washington v. Washington Hospital" by District of Columbia Court of Appeals. ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Alma D. Washington v. Washington Hospital
- Author : District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
- Release Date : January 03, 1990
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 78 KB
Description
This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a jury verdict in a medical malpractice action against the Washington Hospital Center
(WHC or the hospital) in favor of LaVerne Alice Thompson, a woman who suffered permanent catastrophic brain injury from oxygen
deprivation in the course of general anesthesia for elective surgery. Appellants, the mother and daughters of the injured
woman, challenge the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant hospital on their claims for loss of
consortium with Ms. Thompson. As we are bound by precedent holding such claims uncognizable in this jurisdiction, we affirm
this aspect of the judgment without further Discussion. 1 On its cross-appeal, WHC challenges the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting that the
opinion of the plaintiffs' expert -- who testified that WHC had deviated from the standard of care by failing to supply a
carbon dioxide monitoring device that would have permitted early detection of Ms. Thompson's oxygen deprivation -- lacked
an adequate factual basis. WHC further contends that the court abused its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial as
a result of a conversation during a bench conference between the plaintiffs' expert and two jurors, one of whom was hearing-impaired
and communicated through interpreters using sign language Finally, WHC asserts that the trial court erred in calculating a
credit against the jury verdict reflecting a mid-trial settlement between the plaintiffs and certain other defendants, arguing
that the hospital was entitled to a pro rata credit, or at least a pro-tanto credit in the full amount of the settlement (not
merely that portion received by LaVerne Thompson). For the reasons discussed below, none of these contentions is persuasive,
and we affirm the judgments of the trial court.