112 N.C. App. 380 - Bailey v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ejxpert testimony is not required however, to establish the standard of care, failure to comply with the standard of care, or proximate cause, in situations where a jury, based on its common knowledge and experience, is able to decide those issues. [Citation omitted.] The application of this “common knowledge” exception to the requirement of expert testimony in medical malpractice cases has been reserved for those situations in which a physician’s conduct is so grossly negligent or the treatment is of such a nature that the common knowledge of laypersons is sufficient to find the standard of care required, a departure therefrom, or proximate causation. See Buckner v. Wheeldon, 225 N.C. 62, 64 , 33 S.E.2d 480, 482 (1945) (plaintiff had compound fracture of leg with bone protruding through open wound, doctor failed to cleanse or sterilize open wound before setting leg in cast, causing infection); Groce v. Myers, 224 N.C. 165, 170 , 29 S.E.2d 553, 557 (1944) (doctor, in the course of treating plaintiff’s insanity, jerked plaintiffs arm, breaking it); Mitchell v. Saunders, 219 N.C. 178, 184 , 13 S.E.2d 242, 246 (1941) (doctor left sponge in patient’s body during surgery).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Frazier v. Angel Medical Center · 114 N.C. App. 562 - Little v. Matthewson

2. “[T]he physician is required to (1) possess the degree of professional learning, skill, and ability possessed by others with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged negligent act; (2) exercise reasonable care and diligence, in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged negligent act, in the application of his knowledge and skill to the patient’s case; and (3) use his best judgment in the treatment and care of his patient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 114 N.C. App. 297 - Clark v. Perry · 195 N.C. App. 133 - Swink v. Weintraub

3. “The instructions given in this case are insufficient. Our Supreme Court in specifically addressing this issue held that it was insufficient for the trial court to instruct the jury “that the sole issue relating to a physician’s alleged negligence is whether he complied with [N.C.G.S. § 90-21.12].” Wall, 310 N.C. at 192 , 311 S.E.2d at 576 . In this instance the jury was instructed that Dr. Jones would be negligent if he “did not act in accordance with” “the standards of practice . . . among family practice physicians with similar training and experience, and who were situated in the same or similar communities at the time Dr. Jones examined the plaintiff in 1988.” The use of only the precise language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 was expressly prohibited by Wall , and therefore, the instruction was error requiring a new trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 195 N.C. App. 133 - Swink v. Weintraub