Skip to main content

Kristin McKenzie Women's Health Services-Chattanooga, P.C.

Tenn. Ct. App.August 20, 2018No. E2017-00091-COA-R3-CV

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Charles D. Susano, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Kristin McKenzie and her husband, Joshua McKenzie, filed this health care liability action individually, and on behalf of their infant child, Jacob, who sustained injuries during his birth. As a result of these injuries, Jacob has limited use of his left arm. The plaintiffs allege that defendant Dr. Matthew A. Roberts was negligent in the delivery of Jacob. They assert that he applied a vacuum extractor during the delivery without first obtaining mother's informed consent. Following a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Roberts and his employer. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court committed several errors that entitle them to a new trial. They claim that the court erred in allowing the introduction of evidence that violates the collateral source rule. Specifically, they argue that the defendants were allowed to extensively cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses regarding possible health insurance benefits under the Affordable Care Act and other benefits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants pursued this line of interrogation in an attempt to show that some of Jacob's needs would be covered by these collateral sources. The plaintiffs state that the trial court also erred in restricting the scope of the plaintiffs' argument. Plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. Finally, they argue that the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the concepts of "foresight" and "hindsight." Plaintiffs appeal, arguing reversible errors on the part of the trial court. We vacate the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict. We affirm some of the actions of the trial court, actions that are challenged by plaintiffs. We vacate the trial court's order awarding the defendants $81,343.47 in discretionary costs. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit, not a traditional employment law dispute. Kristin McKenzie and her husband sued Dr. Matthew A. Roberts after their son Jacob was injured during birth, leaving him with limited use of his left arm. The parents claimed the doctor was negligent because he used a vacuum extractor during delivery without getting the mother's informed consent first. The court reached a "mixed" outcome, meaning some parts of the case succeeded while others didn't. However, the available information doesn't specify exactly what the court decided on each claim, and no damages were reported as being awarded to the family. **Why this matters for workers:** While this appears to be primarily a medical malpractice case rather than a workplace issue, it could be relevant for healthcare workers who want to understand professional liability standards. Healthcare employees should be aware that proper informed consent procedures are legally required before medical procedures. The case also demonstrates that patients and families can pursue legal action when they believe medical professionals haven't followed proper protocols, which could affect healthcare workers' professional responsibilities and potential liability. More details about the specific employment law aspects would be needed to provide fuller workplace implications.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.