Lama v. Borras – Case Brief
Lama v. Borras, 16 F.3d 473 (1st Cir.1994).
Facts: Romero Lama (P) scheduled surgery with Dr. Borras (D), a neurosurgeon, to correct a herniated disk. Borras neither prescribed nor enforced a regime of absolute bed rest prior to surgery. Because Lama was a heavy smoker, Borras instructed Lama to enter the hospital one week prior to surgery to clean out his lungs. P was not subjected to conservative treatment. The operation was not successful and D operated again five weeks later and did not order pre or post operative antibiotics. After the second operation, there were signs that P had developed a discitis infection and eventually he was given medication. P was hospitalized for several months while treatment for the infection took its course. P sued D for malpractice and was awarded $600,000. Motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial were rejected by the trial court and D appealed.
Issue: What degree of skill must a doctor use to avoid liability?
Holding and Rule: A doctor must use that degree or skill and learning which is normally possessed and used by doctors in good standing in a similar practice in similar communities and under like circumstances.
The court held that under these facts, a doctor would have prescribed bed rest to determine if an operation would be necessary. There was sufficient medical expert testimony to allow a jury to believe that D was negligent in not ordering bed rest. Although there was competent medical expert testimony to the contrary on some points and issues, the jury was free to believe one expert over the other. There was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial or in denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Disposition: Affirmed.