Bad News for Dr. House

Professionals within a field are held to a higher standard of care than the average citizen. They are expected to exercise the prudence of a reasonable individual with like training.

Boyce v. Brown (1938) Arizona
A woman fractured her ankle in 1927. Her doctor repaired her by inserting a pin. In 1934 she returned to her doctor complaining of pain in the ankle. He basically did nothing. In 1936 she came back again, and again her doctor did nothing. This time, she sought a second opinion. Her new doctor ordered an x-ray and discovered dead tissue around the pin. He removed the dead tissue and her pain was gone.

The woman brought a lawsuit against her original doctor. She contended that he was negligent because he should have taken an x-ray in 1934.

Question
Was the doctor negligent?

Holding
No

Reasoning
This case was thrown out by the judge because the plaintiff failed to establish duty. The plaintiff called her new doctor to the stand, and he testified that he would have taken an x-ray back in 1934. However, his wording made his testimony meaningless. The court is not concerned with what a specific doctor would do, but with what a like professional of reasonable prudence would do. The doctor should have testified that an x-ray in this situation would be “standard practice”. I'm placing blame for that mistake on the plaintiff's attorney.

And the winner is...
...verbiage?

Notes
-The attorney pretty much blew this case. Can the poor woman sue her attorney for malpractice? Nope. Lawyers have leeway to argue cases as they see fit. The only way they get nailed for malpractice is by doing something really egregious. For example, declining an offer for settlement without presenting it to their client.

-Many professionals work under contracts, which is a separate area of the law. Let’s pretend an engineer does a poor job repairing the 480 bridge, and it collapses. If the engineer failed to carry out one of the duties of his contract, he can be sued for breach of contract. If he made a boneheaded decision that led to the collapse, he can be sued for a malpractice tort. He can also be sued for both.

-A statute of limitations is the amount of time that a party can be sued. If the lawsuit is not filed in time, it will be barred. The statute of limitations is two years on torts, and one year on contracts.

-Focusing testimony on generalities - such as the fictional professional of ordinary prudence - is much more comfortable for expert witnesses. It’s tough to convince professionals within a field to testify against one another. Nobody wants to be That Guy. Doctors are especially noted for their unwillingness to poop on each other.

summarized from Life of a Law Student