The state Supreme Court last Tuesday asked its Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges to review jury instructions on the substantial factor test in increased-risk medical malpractice cases, saying the wording may be too vague for juries.

In a 5-2 ruling in Reynolds v. Gonzalez, A-9-01, the court also ordered a third trial for a man who is claiming that his permanently damaged foot resulted from a misdiagnosis that could have been properly treated.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]