Medical Malpractice Case of the Month
December 2001

THE COURT of Appeals of Georgia has refused to substitute its judgment for that of the jury in a medical malpractice action where evidence was in conflict concerning the applicable standard of care. Camp v. EMSA Ltd., 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 785 (May 26).
The medical malpractice appeal was brought by Thomas Camp, surviving husband of Alice Camp, and Charles Camp, administrator of the estate of Alice Camp, following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Emergency Medical Associates Ltd. The Camps argued that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the plaintiffs and in failing to grant a motion for a new trial based on the jury's verdict in favor of EMSA.
Alice Camp, at 79, had been admitted to the emergency room of Doctors Memorial Hospital in Augusta, Ga., on July 23, 1994, complaining of mid-sternal chest pain radiating to her shoulders and neck, severe headache, vomiting, diarrhea and sweating. She also advised that the symptoms began after she sneezed earlier in the day. The emergency room physician, Dr. Ramirez, was concerned that Ms. Camp might be suffering a heart attack and ordered tests, which ruled out that condition. He also performed a neurological examination and ordered an X-ray of Ms. Camp's sinuses. Ms. Camp was dismissed from the hospital with treatment for sinusitis. The next morning, Ms. Camp died from a cerebral hemorrhage. The Camps argued that Dr. Ramirez failed to evaluate Ms. Camp for a cerebral aneurysm and that the undiagnosed aneurysm caused her death. In support of their case, the plaintiffs presented testimony of the physician who performed the autopsy on Alice Camp, Dr. Brian Frist. Although Dr. Frist could not find any I remnants of an aneurysm, he testified that he believed that Ms. Camp died from a ruptured cerebral aneurysm. The defendants presented three experts who contradicted Dr. Frist's testimony. Dr. Alfred Gervin testified that Dr. Ramirez's treatment complied with the applicable standard of care for emergency room physicians; Dr. Stephen Vogel testified that Ms. Camp's autopsy was inconclusive as to whether or not she had suffered a cerebral aneurysm, but said it was unlikely that she had suffered an aneurysm; and Dr. Wayne Beveridge opined that Ms. Camp did not die from an aneurysm. The court found that it was for the jury to determine whether the facts on which an expert based his or her opinion exist and whether the expert's opinions that the facts constitute malpractice should be accepted. Because evidence at trial was in conflict as to whether Alice Camp suffered an aneurysm and whether Dr. Ramirez's treatment complied with the applicable standard of care, it was for the jury to resolve the conflict. The court declined to replace its judgment with that of the jury, because there was evidence to support the defense verdict.
This case shows the need to challenge an expert's testimony prior to trial with a motion in limine.
Assuming that the evidence was weighted in favor of the plaintiffs, the jury could still conclude, as it did in the Camp case, that the defendant's experts were more credible. Accordingly, motions in limine to bar an expert's testimony may be the best method for both plaintiffs and defendants to preclude testimony at trial. However, once there is a conflict in experts' testimony, courts will rarely, if ever, overrule a jury verdict. 

Previous Page | Next Page

Return to the Perry Hookman, M.D., P.A. Home Page