A little boy named Anthony underwent many treatments to a gastroesophageal reflux disease in 2001, but he never seemed to recover from the illness. When his symptoms escalated, the child’s parents took him to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with respiratory distress. The little boy died in that emergency room. An autopsy shows that he had viral myocarditis, which is a viral infection that manifests itself in the heart. The bereft parents believed that the baby’s doctor and practice group were to blame for the early death because they had not caught the illness and had been treating the infant for the wrong condition. The lawsuit dragged on for six years, but the jury eventually sided with the physician, saying that there was no way he could have prevented the death.

As the family left the court room discouraged, another Pennsylvania court case was underway in another part of the state. In this case, a child suffered severe birth injuries when his shoulder became lodged in his mother’s pubic bone as she was delivering him. Because of the method the doctor used to free the baby, baby Austin suffered extensive nerve damage. His parents filed a lawsuit against the delivery doctor, saying that the physician could have prevented the damage if he had been more careful. In the court, the presiding judge reminded the jury that the doctor is not necessarily responsible for the injuries at a birth just because it is their profession to deliver healthy children. Accidents do happen, the judge warned.

When the jury ruled in favor of the physician, the family appealed. Eventually, the court case made it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the jury there ruled that the doctor was not guilty because of an “error of judgment” that caused Austin to incur nerve damage. The judge on this case said that the judge in the lower court should not have warned his jury that the doctor was probably not responsible, but if a doctor does the best that he or she can, then that doctor should not be held liable for a mistake that occurs with one of his or her patients. The “error of judgment” defense is confusing, and many courts say that the phrase has the potential to distract jurors. Their main goal is to determine whether or not a physician was able to uphold the hospital’s standard of care, and not whether or not his or her error of judgment was excusable.

One attorney says that using “error of judgment” as a defense in a medical malpractice case is similar to saying “I’m a good driver and just made a mistake” when involved in a car accident. In a car accident situation, if the driver was at fault, regardless of whether or not that person believes that he or she is a good driver, he or she would be responsible for the liabilities of the crash. In a medical malpractice case, doctors who inadvertently cause the death or severe maiming injury of one of their patients should be held responsible as well. If they are not, then thousands of doctors will cite “error of judgment” as their reason for a death or injury and will be able to avoid any sort of lawsuit against them or the hospital. The case considering little Anthony, the infant who perished from viral myocarditis at a young age, has been reopened in the Supreme Court and the judges will rule soon as to whether or not the doctor’s “error in judgment” is enough to excuse him from liability.