Boggs v. Traugh

Virginia Circuit Court

Boggs v. Traugh

58 Va. Cir. 188, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 141

CourtVirginia Circuit Court

DecidedFebruary 6, 2002

DocketCase No. (Law) L00-1881

StatusPublished

This text of 58 Va. Cir. 188 (Boggs v. Traugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boggs v. Traugh, 58 Va. Cir. 188, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 141 (Va. Super. Ct. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Charles E. Poston

Today the Court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this action for medical malpractice.

To establish a prima facia case for medical malpractice, the plaintiff must prove a breach of the standard of care that was the proximate cause of the injury alleged. Griffett v. Ryan, 247 Va. 465, 470 (1994); St. George v. Pariser, 253 Va. 329 (1997); Blondel v. Hays, 241 Va. 467 (1991). Critically, in almost every medical malpractice case, Virginia law requires that the standard of care be established through expert testimony. Dickerson v. Fatehi, 253 Va. 324 (1997); Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110, 113 (1986); Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645, 653 (1976).

In the case at bar, the plaintiff has failed to designate any expert who could establish the standard of care. The defendant first requested the plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses on June 8,2001. After the plaintiff indicated he had not yet determined who his expert witnesses would be, the Court ordered the plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses by January 8,2002. The Court then explained the necessity for designating experts as ordered. Almost a month after the court’s deadline, the plaintiff has yet to designate his expert witnesses. The gravamen of the plaintiffs action is that the defendant physician failed to treat properly pain in the plaintiffs left foot in light of the fact that the plaintiff had sickle cell anemia. Determination of whether the defendant physician breached the standard of care would necessarily require an understanding of issues outside the ordinary experience of a jury and is impossible without the assistance of expert witnesses.

[189]*189Because of his failure to designate even a single expert witness, the plaintiff cannot establish the standard of care nor the breach thereof, both indispensable elements of an action for medical practice. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiffs action is dismissed with prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Charles E. Poston

Today the Court grants the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this action for medical malpractice.

To establish a prima facia case for medical malpractice, the plaintiff must prove a breach of the standard of care that was the proximate cause of the injury alleged. Griffett v. Ryan, 247 Va. 465, 470 (1994); St. George v. Pariser, 253 Va. 329 (1997); Blondel v. Hays, 241 Va. 467 (1991). Critically, in almost every medical malpractice case, Virginia law requires that the standard of care be established through expert testimony. Dickerson v. Fatehi, 253 Va. 324 (1997); Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110, 113 (1986); Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645, 653 (1976).

In the case at bar, the plaintiff has failed to designate any expert who could establish the standard of care. The defendant first requested the plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses on June 8,2001. After the plaintiff indicated he had not yet determined who his expert witnesses would be, the Court ordered the plaintiff to designate his expert witnesses by January 8,2002. The Court then explained the necessity for designating experts as ordered. Almost a month after the court’s deadline, the plaintiff has yet to designate his expert witnesses. The gravamen of the plaintiffs action is that the defendant physician failed to treat properly pain in the plaintiffs left foot in light of the fact that the plaintiff had sickle cell anemia. Determination of whether the defendant physician breached the standard of care would necessarily require an understanding of issues outside the ordinary experience of a jury and is impossible without the assistance of expert witnesses.

[189]*189Because of his failure to designate even a single expert witness, the plaintiff cannot establish the standard of care nor the breach thereof, both indispensable elements of an action for medical practice. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the plaintiffs action is dismissed with prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Va. Cir. 188, 2002 Va. Cir. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boggs-v-traugh-vacc-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack