He came under the care of Dr. Raquel Forsythe, a fourth-year surgical resident, and Dr. Th omas Chiodo, a second-year resident in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Mr. Clark's intestines failed to empty as a result of his injuries, consequently his stomach needed to be decompressed and drained periodically.
To drain his stomach contents, Drs. Forsythe and Chiodo inserted a naso-gastric tube. Mr. Clark pulled the tube out and the doctors re-inserted it. When he extubated himself a second time, the doctors decided not to re-intubate him. Mr. Clark subsequently died. Although the defendants later claimed that he died of cardiac arrest, his estate alleged that he died when he vomited and aspirated the vomitus. According to plaintiff 's expert, Mr. Clark lived for four minutes after vomiting and choking on the vomitus.
Suit was brought by Mr. Clark's estate for medical malpractice against the hospital and various defendants, including Drs. Forsythe and Chiodo. Th e jury awarded the plaintiff $2 million for Mr. Clark's pain and suff ering and $1 million in pecuniary losses for his wrongful death. Th is appeal ensued.
Issues
To what standard of care should medical residents be held? Was the verdict for $2 million for Mr. Clark's pain and suff ering clearly excessive?
Analysis
With regard to the standard of care, the court noted that one must graduate from a four-year medical school and complete a one-year internship, or a year of approved postgraduate work, in order to be licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey. Additionally, a person will be regarded as practicing medicine if he or she holds himself or herself out as "Dr.," "doctor," or "MD." Consequently, both Dr. Forsythe and Dr. Chiodo would be regarded as engaged in the practice of medicine.
Th e court also noted that there have been a number of cases from other jurisdictions that have held residents to the same standard of care as general practitioners. Th e court reasoned that this was appropriate, because they were licensed to practice on the same level as a general practitioner. Additionally, the court noted that to accord them a lower standard of care would open the door to lowering the standard of care for physicians who were less experienced with a given procedure, which the court would be extremely loath to do. Accordingly, the court held that the residents should be held to the same standard of care as would a general practitioner.
Th ere are two tests in New Jersey to determine whether jury verdicts are excessive. Th e common law test requires that the verdict be so disproportionate to the nature of the injuries as to "shock the conscience" of the court. Th e legislature enacted the New Jersey