Negligence is a failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.
The definition of “medical negligence” or “medical malpractice” dates back to 1928 when the Ohio Supreme Court decided Ault v. Hall (1928), 119 Ohio St. 422:
In an action against a surgeon for malpractice, the jury should be instructed that the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence and the jury must find that the defendant in the performance of his service either did some particular thing or things that physicians and surgeons of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances, or that the defendant failed or omitted to do some particular thing or things which physicians and surgeons of ordinary skill, care and diligence would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
The rule was reiterated in Bruni v. Tatsumi (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 127:
1. In order to establish medical malpractice, it must be shown by a preponderance of evidence that the injury complained of was caused by the doing of some particular thing or things that a physician or surgeon of ordinary skill, care and diligence would not have done under like or similar conditions or circumstances, or by the failure or omission to do some particular thing or things that such a physician or surgeon would have done under like or similar conditions and circumstances, and that the injury complained of was the direct and proximate result of such doing or failing to do some one or more of such particular things.
2. The standard of care for a physician or surgeon in the practice of a board-certified medical or surgical specialty should be that of a reasonable specialist practicing medicine or surgery in that same specialty in the light of present day scientific knowledge in that specialty field; therefore, geographical considerations or circumstances control neither the standard of the specialist’s care nor the competence of the testimony of an expert in that specialty.
That is a lot of words to say, “A physician must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.”
Today, even Family Medicine and Internal Medicine are board certified specialties, so presumably the second paragraph should govern all physicians. Nevertheless, practicing trial lawyers use the phrase “standard of care” to denote conduct that is reasonable under the circumstances; if conduct is unreasonable, then the physician is deemed to have “deviated” from the “standard of care.” These concepts are confusing even to those who practice in this area every day. It would better serve doctors, lawyers, judges, and juries if the Ohio Supreme Court could more clearly state what is meant by “medical negligence”, ”medical malpractice,” or “standard of care.” They should adopt the “reasonable conduct under the circumstances” language.
If a person has knowledge, skill, or intelligence superior to that of the ordinary person (such as a trained physician), the law will demand of that person conduct consistent with it. Professionals are required not only to exercise reasonable care in what they do, but also to possess a standard minimum of special knowledge and ability. A doctor must have and use the knowledge, skill, and care ordinarily possessed and employed by members of the profession in good standing; a doctor will be liable if harm results because he does not have them.
T. Jeffrey Beausay
