Jan 19, 2010
Court of Appeal rejects plaintiff’s claim that she was entitled to special jury instructions, finding that CACI instructions adequately encompassed the issues

Holmes v. Tsou (2010) 2010 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 338 (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven) [unpublished]. Plaintiff sought treatment for her fractured wrist from GMSR’s client, defendant orthopedist. The orthopedist concluded that surgery was not a reasonable option for her, performed a nonsurgical procedure instead and never discussed surgery with her. Plaintiff then sued the orthopedist, alleging that he was negligent in treating her and in failing to disclose surgery. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by refusing her proposed instructions that defendant had a duty to disclose the existence of other schools of thought, available choices, and nonrecommended procedures. The Court of Appeal affirmed in full, and held that the standard CACI instructions adequately encompassed the legal principles set forth in plaintiff’s proposed instructions, and that she was not entitled to her special instructions.