Background
Wendy Wakenight sued podiatrist Dr. Brandon Gumbiner and his employer, Katherine Shaw Bethea Hospital, alleging negligent treatment of her plantar fasciitis. She claimed that two surgeries and related care caused nerve damage, advancing six theories of breach of the standard of care. She did not assert a lack-of-informed-consent claim.
Before trial, the circuit court barred defendants from introducing Wakenight’s consent form or arguing that she waived negligence claims, but allowed evidence of known surgical risks and complications as relevant to standard of care and causation. At the six-day trial, defendants elicited testimony that Gumbiner had discussed risks including nerve damage, swelling, and scarring with Wakenight. The jury returned a defense verdict and found through special interrogatories that Gumbiner did not breach the standard of care on any of the six asserted theories.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Wakenight’s motion for a new trial. It held that evidence that scarring, swelling, and nerve injury can be known complications of properly performed surgery was relevant to causation and negligence. But evidence that Gumbiner specifically told Wakenight about those risks before surgery was irrelevant because informed consent was not at issue; it did not make breach or causation more or less likely and risked confusing the jury.
That evidentiary error did not warrant reversal, however. Wakenight bore the burden to show substantial prejudice affecting the outcome, but she supplied an incomplete appellate record that omitted substantial trial testimony, arguments, instructions, and other proceedings. The available record also contained proper expert testimony about known complications, and it showed no explicit argument that Wakenight assumed the risk or waived her right to sue.
Key Takeaways
- In a medical-negligence case without an informed-consent claim, a patient’s preoperative risk discussion is generally irrelevant to breach and causation.
- Medical experts may testify that an injury can be a known complication of properly performed surgery.
- An evidentiary error requires reversal only when the appellant shows substantial prejudice and an effect on the trial’s outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision draws a practical line between admissible evidence about surgical complications and inadmissible evidence that a particular patient was warned of them. A patient may consent to treatment risks without consenting to negligent care.
It also underscores the appellate consequence of an incomplete record: without the full trial context, a reviewing court will resolve doubts against the appellant seeking a new trial.