Nowatske v. OsterlohFACTS:
The plaintiff noticed he had blurred vision in his right eye and approached thedefendant, a retina specialist, who diagnosed him as having a retinal detachment. Prior to thesurgery, plaintiff signed a consent form explaining the risk and possible complications involvedin the proposed treatment. Post-surgery, there was prove of swelling in the eye and the partiesargued about the success of the surgery. The swelling subsided and still was unable to see in hisright eye. The plaintiff was later informed by the defendant that he would no longer be permanently blind in the right eye.The jury found that the defendant wasn’t negligent and the circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiff appealed….
Whether the defendant has failed to use reasonable care, skills, judgment which isexercised by others who are similarly situated or under similar circumstances within the profession when he performed the eye surgery on the plaintiff.
Physicians are held to a standard of reasonable care, skill and judgment customary practice of the profession at the time and a reasonably competent practitioner is the one whokeep abreast of advances in medical knowledge.
Here, exercising due care is refers to as a reasonably practitioner who keepsup with advances in medical knowledge. In this case, the defendant used a recognized methodcustomary to the industry at the time of operation whether the operation was successful or not isnot relevant. A reasonably prudent doctor keeps up reasonably with knowledge, and doctorsmust adapt to upgrading medical technology. The standard of customary care continues toincrease.
As long as the defendant’s conduct conform to the standard of care noted within the profession as the degree of care, skill, judgment that an average specialist within the same or under similar circumstances would have acted. And, just b/c the defendant chose a recognizedtreatment acceptable at the time does not shield them from negligent if it reveals that they hadfailed to exercise due care necessary in doing the operation
Therefore, case remanded back to the court of appeals for further processing.