Morrison v. MacNamara

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Torts

Tortsmedical malpracticestandard of careassumption of riskmedical malpracticeclinical laboratorynational certificationlocality rule

Facts

Morrison went to Hunter Memorial Laboratories, a nationally certified clinical medical laboratory in the District of Columbia, for a urethral smear test ordered by his physician. Technician MacNamara performed the first test with Morrison standing; after Morrison complained of feeling faint, MacNamara had him sit and rest but did not medically evaluate him or seek assistance. Two to three minutes later, after asking if it was okay to proceed and receiving a yes, MacNamara performed a second standing test, during which Morrison fainted, struck his head, and suffered permanent loss of smell and partial loss of taste. Morrison's expert testified that nationally accepted standards required the test to be performed with the patient sitting or prone and that a patient who had complained of faintness should be medically evaluated before any repeat test.

Issue

Whether a nationally certified medical laboratory and its personnel should be judged by a national rather than local standard of care in a malpractice action. Whether the evidence permitted submission of assumption of risk to the jury based on the patient's consent to a second test.

Rule

At least as to board certified physicians, hospitals, medical laboratories, and other health care providers, the standard of care is measured by a national standard rather than exclusively by the standard in the District or a similar locality. Assumption of risk requires actual knowledge and full comprehension of the danger, plus voluntary exposure to that known danger; in medical malpractice, save for exceptional circumstances, a patient cannot assume the risk of negligent treatment absent proof of such knowledge and voluntary choice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz sues Capital Meridian Hospital, a nationally accredited hospital in Washington, D.C., after she is injured during a diagnostic procedure. At trial, Lena offers an out-of-state specialist who testifies about nationally accepted hospital practices, but the judge instructs the jury to measure the hospital only by the practices of hospitals in the Washington metropolitan area.

If Lena appeals, what is the strongest argument that the instruction was erroneous?

Explanation. The majority held that at least as to board certified physicians, hospitals, medical laboratories, and other health care providers, the standard of care is measured by a national standard. An instruction restricting the jury to the same community or locality is erroneous for such providers because it improperly excludes consideration of national standards evidence.