Kos v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital

Summary

The court held that the trial court improperly gave an acceptable-alternatives instruction because the competing expert testimony established opposing methods, not multiple methods accepted in the medical community. The error was harmless because the verdict necessarily rested on the jury's finding that no fourth-degree extension existed, making the examination-timing issue immaterial. The court also held that the supplemental instruction accurately reflected the plaintiffs' trial theory and, viewed with the entire charge, did not limit their allegations. The judgment was affirmed.