Kos v. Lawrence + Memorial Hospital

Summary

The court affirmed the defense judgment in this medical malpractice action. It held that the trial court improperly gave an acceptable-alternatives instruction because the competing expert testimony established conflicting views about the required examination timing, not two medically accepted alternatives, but the error was harmless because the verdict necessarily rested on the jury's finding that no fourth-degree extension existed. The court also held that the supplemental instruction accurately described the plaintiffs' theory and, read with the charge as a whole, did not improperly limit their allegations.