Spensieri v. Lasky, 94 N.Y.2d 231 (1999)

The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is generally inadmissible as direct evidence of the standard of care in medical malpractice cases, and jury charges must be tailored to the specific facts and issues presented at trial.

Summary

This case addresses the admissibility of the PDR as evidence of the standard of care in a medical malpractice case and the necessity of specific jury charges. The plaintiff, Spensieri, sued Dr. Lasky for prescribing Estinyl, alleging negligence. The Court of Appeals held that the PDR is not, on its own, admissible as evidence of the standard of care. The court also addressed the importance of tailored jury instructions, emphasizing that while a generalized malpractice charge may suffice, specific facts may require a charge focusing on the standard of care in prescribing medications. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s order due to the plaintiff’s failure to properly preserve objections to the jury charge.

Facts

The plaintiff, Spensieri, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Lasky, alleging negligence in prescribing Estinyl (estrogen medication). The plaintiff attempted to introduce the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) as evidence of the standard of care. The plaintiff also requested a specific jury charge concerning the standard of care in prescribing medications.

Procedural History

The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to introduce the PDR as evidence. The specific jury charge requested by the plaintiff was not given in the form requested. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Dr. Lasky. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the exclusion of the PDR and the failure to give the requested jury charge were errors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) is admissible as evidence to establish the standard of care in a medical malpractice action.
2. Whether the jury charge given adequately addressed the applicable standard of care for prescribing medication, given the facts of the case.

Holding

1. No, because the PDR, by itself, does not establish the standard of care.
2. Yes, in this specific case, because the plaintiff did not properly preserve their objections to the jury charge for appellate review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the PDR is not a substitute for expert testimony in establishing the standard of care. While the PDR may contain information relevant to a physician’s knowledge, it does not, on its own, dictate the standard of care. Regarding the jury charge, the court acknowledged that a tailored charge might be necessary depending on the specific facts, particularly concerning the standard of care in prescribing medications. However, because the plaintiff’s request for a specific charge was bundled with inappropriate requests and the plaintiff failed to properly redact or clarify their request, the court found no reversible error. As Judge Smith stated in his concurrence, “The trial court’s instructions ‘should state the law as applicable to the particular facts in issue in the case at bar, which the evidence in the case tends to prove; mere abstract propositions of law applicable to any case, or mere statements of law in general terms, even though correct, should not be given unless they are made applicable to the issues in the case at bar’ ” citing Green v Downs, 27 NY2d 205, 208. The court emphasized that specific requests to change the charge are necessary to preserve the issue for appeal.