A poor medical outcome does not by itself establish that a health-care provider violated the legal standard of care. North Carolina requires the disputed care to be evaluated against the applicable professional standard at the time of the event, and the claim must separately connect any departure to the injury being alleged.

The standard of care identifies what qualified providers should have done under the relevant circumstances; causation separately asks whether a departure produced the claimed injury.

The statute identifies the comparison

G.S. 90-21.12 addresses standards of practice among members of the same health-care profession with similar training and experience, situated in the same or similar communities under the same or similar circumstances. For an action concerning a hospital or other covered facility, the statute uses standards among similar health-care providers situated in the same or similar communities under the same or similar circumstances.

The statute also contains a different burden of proof for a medical-malpractice action arising from furnishing or failing to furnish professional services in treatment of a defined emergency medical condition. The emergency-care subsection should be applied only after the care and statutory definition are examined.

Define the professional service before selecting the comparison

  • The defendant’s profession, license, training, role, privileges, assignment, and actual involvement
  • The diagnosis, procedure, medication, monitoring, communication, facility operation, or other act being challenged
  • The patient’s presentation, history, test results, risks, alternatives, urgency, resources, and condition at the time
  • The relevant community and the facilities, equipment, funding, staffing, referral options, and other circumstances shown by evidence
  • The date of the care, because later practices should not automatically be projected backward

Same-or-similar-community familiarity requires a foundation

In the published Henry v. Southeastern OB-GYN Associates litigation, the courts addressed whether proposed testimony was tied to the community where the care occurred or a demonstrated similar community. The lesson is not that an expert must practice in the same city; the record must establish a reliable basis for familiarity with the applicable comparison.

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s published Crocker v. Roethling decision explains that familiarity can be developed in multiple ways and that the testimony should be considered as a whole. Hospital type, provider background, population, facilities, equipment, funding, and the physical and financial environment may be relevant, depending on the disputed care.

Separate standard, breach, and causation

  • Standard: the applicable practice under the statutory comparison and circumstances
  • Breach: the specific act or omission that allegedly departed from that practice
  • Causation: how that departure, rather than the underlying condition or another event, caused the claimed harm
  • Damages: the additional treatment, function, expense, income loss, and other legally recoverable effects

Guidelines, policies, labels, accreditation materials, publications, and later corrective action may provide context. None should be described as automatically establishing the legal standard or breach without analyzing applicability, foundation, timing, and the complete evidence.

Match the witness to the disputed care

The related North Carolina Rule 702 medical-expert guide addresses who may offer a standard-of-care opinion and how recent professional activity, same or similar practice, and the exact procedure or care issue affect qualification.

Rosensteel Fleishman Car Accident & Injury Lawyers provides information about consulting a Charlotte medical malpractice attorney for a standard-of-care review. The review should use the complete chart, audit trail, imaging, laboratory data, policies, staffing and credential records, communications, and earlier and later medical history relevant to breach and causation.

Sources