• Homepage
»
• Torts
»
• Negligence

97. Should the motion be granted?

At the close of the patient's evidence, the first orthopedist moved for judgment as a matter of law.

In response to the question «Would you have inserted a pin initially?» the second orthopedist testified, «I personally would not have been satisfied that the leg would heal properly without a pin.»

The only evidence that the patient offered in support of her malpractice claim was the testimony of the second orthopedist, as follows:

The patient brought a malpractice action against the first orthopedist, claiming that he should have surgically inserted a pin at the time of initial treatment.

A patient who had suffered a severe fracture of her leg was treated by an orthopedist, who set the patient's leg and put it in a cast. When the leg continued to bother the patient six months later, she consulted a second orthopedist in the same town. The second orthopedist surgically inserted a pin to facilitate healing.