In a medical malpractice trial against a single defendant neurologist for delayed diagnosis, the parties disagreed on the formulation of jury questions regarding causation and damages.
The trial judge ruled that the causation question must use the 'but for' test rather than 'caused or contributed', as the latter could confuse the jury in a single-defendant case.
The judge also ordered the jury to provide reasons for its finding on causation to ensure a rational analysis.
On damages, the judge ruled that mitigation and collateral benefits should be addressed in jury instructions rather than separate questions.
Finally, the judge removed the Estate's claim for past value of care from the jury due to insufficient evidence, but allowed the claim for past value of loss of housekeeping to proceed.
