Ouellette v. Mehalic
| Decision Date | 08 January 1988 |
| Citation | 534 A.2d 1331 |
| Parties | Norma OUELLETTE v. Thomas MEHALIC. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Mark S. Kierstead (orally), Waterville, James Mitchell, Augusta, for plaintiff.
Robert K. Hanson (orally), Paul F. Driscoll, Norman, Hanson & Detroy, Portland, for defendant.
Before NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.
In this malpractice action, the plaintiff, Norma Ouellette, acting as parent and next friend of her daughter Tracy, appeals the judgment of the Superior Court, Kennebec County, resulting from a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, Thomas Mehalic. The defendant cross-appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment.
This case concerns brain surgery performed by the defendant on Tracy Ouellette when she was just under six years of age. The purpose of the surgery was the removal of a congenital brain tumor that had continued to cause Tracy substantial medical and developmental problems from a very early age. The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint against the defendant is that although some risks associated with the operation were discussed by the parties, the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff that Tracy would require hormonal therapy the rest of her life, and that there were less invasive forms of treatment. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the Superior Court erred (1) in granting the defendant's motion for directed verdict, (2) in precluding the plaintiff from calling expert witnesses at trial, and (3) in denying plaintiff's request to continue the commencement of the trial.
The presiding justice directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff's case on the ground that no reasonable person could find by a preponderance of the evidence all the necessary elements of medical malpractice. In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must establish (1) the appropriate standard of medical care, (2) the defendant's deviation from that recognized standard, and (3) that the conduct in violation of that standard was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (Me.1979). Specifically, in an informed consent medical malpractice case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to disclose information under the "medical standards applicable to 'a reasonable medical practitioner' in the defendant's branch of medicine." Jacobs v. Painter, 530 A.2d 231, 235 (M...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Daniel G. Lilley, P.A.
...breached the standard of care, and (3) that defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Ouellette v. Mehalic, 534 A.2d 1331, 1332 (Me. 1988). Ordinarily, the plaintiff must prove these elements through expert medical testimony. Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (......
-
Gladu v. Correct Care Solutions
...standard; and, (3) that the conduct in violation of that standard was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Ouellette v. Mehalic, 534 A.2d 1331, 1332 (Me.1988); Dubois v. United States, 324 F.Supp.2d 143, 148 (D.Me.2004); see also Jack H. Simmons, Donald N. Zillman & David D. Grego......
-
Demmons v. Tritch
...standard; and, (3) that the conduct in violation of that standard was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Ouellette v. Mehalic, 534 A.2d 1331, 1332 (Me.1988); Dubois v. United States, 324 F.Supp.2d 143, 148 (D.Me.2004); see also JACK H. SIMMONS, DONALD N. ZILLMAN & DAVID D. GREGO......
-
Welch v. U.S., CV-09-20-B-W
...standard, and (3) that the conduct in violation of that standard was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury." Ouellette v. Mehalic, 534 A.2d 1331, 1332 (Me.1988); see also Cox v. Dela Cruz, 406 A.2d 620, 622 (Me.1979) (same); Caron v. Pratt, 336 A.2d 856, 858-60 (Me.1975) (same). Ord......