A medical emergency can change the circumstances in which care is evaluated. It does not automatically replace North Carolina's professional standard with the ordinary sudden-emergency rule used in many motor-vehicle negligence cases.

Wiggins v. East Carolina Health-Chowan, Inc. is a jury-instruction decision, not a rule that an emergency automatically lowers a health care provider's professional duty.

The dispute arose from labor and delivery care

The published Court of Appeals opinion in Wiggins, reported at 234 N.C. App. 759 (2014), arose after a patient received Pitocin during labor. A nurse later found a prolapsed umbilical cord, the physician was contacted, and the child was delivered by cesarean section. The plaintiffs alleged that delays and departures from the applicable standard contributed to the child's injuries. The defendants disputed liability.

At trial, the jury received instructions about the professional standard of care and a separate instruction based on the ordinary sudden-emergency doctrine. The jury returned a defense verdict. The appeal asked whether those two standards should have been presented together.

The two instructions asked different questions

The ordinary sudden-emergency instruction described what a reasonable and prudent person would do when unexpectedly confronted with imminent danger. Medical negligence, however, evaluates a health care provider against the professional standard that applies to similarly trained and experienced providers in the same or similar communities under the same or similar circumstances.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the professional standard already accommodates the circumstances of an alleged medical emergency. Adding the ordinary reasonable-person instruction created a different reference point and could mislead the jury. The court held that the sudden-emergency doctrine was unnecessary and inapplicable in the medical-negligence case, reversed the judgment, and ordered a new trial.

Current G.S. 90-21.12 contains a separate emergency provision

G.S. 90-21.12(a) states the professional standard for North Carolina medical-malpractice actions. Subsection (b) separately requires clear and convincing proof of a violation when an action arises from furnishing or failing to furnish professional services in the treatment of an emergency medical condition as defined there.

That statutory burden is not the same as instructing a medical-malpractice jury to apply an ordinary reasonable-person sudden-emergency doctrine. The applicable statute, event date, claimed emergency, provider role, and requested instructions must be evaluated together.

Build the emergency-care chronology before applying a label

  • Presentation time, symptoms, vital signs, monitoring, examinations, test results, orders, medication administration, changes, and escalation events
  • Provider identity, role, training, location, information available at each decision point, and communications sent or received
  • Hospital policy or protocol version, effective date, purpose, evidence of use, and any claimed departure kept separate from the legal standard
  • Decision-to-response intervals recorded from original sources rather than reconstructed from rounded times
  • Standard-of-care, causation, and damages opinions separated so one conclusion is not treated as proof of another

The related guide to the medical-malpractice standard of care in North Carolina explains the same-or-similar-community framework and the difference between a professional standard, an internal policy, and an adverse outcome. This page owns the narrower Wiggins jury-instruction question.

Rosensteel Fleishman Car Accident & Injury Lawyers provides information about consulting a Charlotte medical malpractice lawyer when emergency care is disputed. Whether subsection (b), a professional standard, an expert-review requirement, causation evidence, or a deadline applies depends on the facts and current law.

Sources