Bad Outcome ≠ Negligence: Jury Instruction Approved in CO Case

In Day v. Johnson, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed a ruling that upheld a jury instruction clarifying that an unsuccessful medical outcome does not automatically imply physician negligence. The decision addressed objections to Colorado Jury Instruction-Civil 15:4, particularly its third sentence referencing a physician's exercise of judgment.

Background of Medical Malpractice Suit

Loretta Jean Day underwent thyroid surgery performed by Dr. Bruce Johnson, after which she suffered complications including bleeding, edema, vocal cord paralysis, and a permanent speaking disability. She and her husband, Richard Day, sued Dr. Johnson for negligence. At trial, the court instructed the jury using CJI-Civ. 15:4, including the sentence: "An exercise of judgment that results in an unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent."

The Days objected to this portion of the instruction, arguing that it undermined the objective standard of care by introducing subjective elements and unfairly emphasized the defense's case. The jury ultimately found in favor of Dr. Johnson.

Appellate Review and Supreme Court Ruling

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the instruction correctly stated the law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to evaluate whether the third sentence of CJI-Civ. 15:4 accurately reflects Colorado's medical malpractice standards.

The Court emphasized that medical malpractice claims require proof that a physician failed to conform to the objective standard of care. While physicians may be required to choose between treatment options, merely experiencing a poor outcome does not prove negligence. The Court explained:

• The phrase "exercise of judgment" is commonly understood and need not be separately defined for the jury.

• CJI-Civ. 15:4 does not introduce subjectivity into the standard of care but reinforces that negligence must be evaluated under an objective standard.

• The instruction does not immunize physicians from liability but clarifies that a bad result alone is insufficient for a negligence finding.

The Court distinguished this instruction from "error in judgment" instructions in other states that use subjective or vague language like "good faith" or "honest mistake," which could improperly shift focus from whether the physician met the applicable professional standard.

Instruction Must Be Read in Context

The Supreme Court also noted that CJI-Civ. 15:4 is not a standalone instruction. When used in conjunction with other pattern instructions that define negligence and the standard of care, it assists jurors in appropriately distinguishing between poor outcomes and actionable negligence.

Ultimately, the Court found that CJI-Civ. 15:4 accurately reflects the law in Colorado and affirmed the use of the instruction.

Legal Support for Medical Malpractice Cases Involving Judgment Calls

Disputes in medical malpractice cases often involve questions about whether a physician’s actions met the appropriate standard of care. Our attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, PC assist clients with evaluating potential claims and navigating the legal process when medical negligence is suspected.