Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Jury Instructions

By: Derek Hawkins//May 27, 2020//

Jury Instructions

By: Derek Hawkins//May 27, 2020//

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: London Scott Barney, et al. v. Julie Mickelson, MD., et al.

Case No.: 2020 WI 40

Focus: Jury Instructions

This case centers on whether, based on the evidence introduced at trial, a circuit court properly instructed a jury on the “alternative methods” paragraph of Wis JI——Civil 1023 (2019) (the “alternative methods instruction”). London Barney was born with severe and permanent neurologic injuries. London and his mother, Raquel Barney, filed a medical malpractice action alleging that Dr. Julie Mickelson, M.D., was negligent for failing to accurately trace London’s fetal heart rate during Mrs. Barney’s labor. The Barneys alleged that without an accurate tracing of London’s heart rate, Dr. Mickelson did not recognize signs that London’s oxygenation status was depleting.

Over the Barneys’ objection, the circuit court read the jury the alternative methods instruction. This instruction generally informed the jury that Dr. Mickelson was not negligent if she used reasonable care, skill, and judgment in administering any one of the recognized reasonable treatment methods for monitoring London’s heart rate. The jury found Dr. Mickelson not negligent in her care and treatment of the Barneys. The court of appeals reversed the judgment dismissing the Barneys’ medical malpractice action and remanded the case for a new trial.

We conclude that based on all of the expert testimony introduced at trial, the jury was properly given the alternative methods instruction in this case. Therefore, we reverse the court of appeals and uphold the jury verdict.

Reversed

Concur:

Dissent:

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests