Nestorowich v. Ricotta

In Nestorowich v. Ricotta, 97 NY2d 393, 398, 767 NE2d 125, 740 NYS2d 668 (2002), a case not involving a psychiatrist, the Court addressed the proper circumstances in which the "error in judgment" charge may be given by a trial court in a medical malpractice action. The Court commenced its analysis of the issue by reiterating the appropriate legal standard in all medical malpractice actions: "The prevailing standard of care governing the conduct of medical professionals has been a fixed part of our common law for more than a century. The Pike standard demands that a doctor exercise that reasonable degree of learning and skill that is ordinarily possessed by physicians and surgeons in the locality where the doctor practices. Although malpractice jurisprudence has evolved to accommodate advances in medicine, the Pike standard remains the touchstone by which a doctor's conduct is measured and serves as the beginning point of any medical malpractice analysis. "A doctor is charged with a duty to exercise due care, as measured against the conduct of his or her own peers--the reasonably prudent doctor standard. Implicit within the concept of due care is the principle that doctors must employ their best judgment in exercising . . . skill and applying their knowledge. The notion of best judgment assures conformance with the prevailing standard of care and accepted medical practice." (97 NY2d at 398). The Court further discussed the need to measure a doctor's conduct "by an objective reasonably prudent doctor standard" but recognized the application of collateral doctrines, such as the "error in judgment" doctrine (id.). On this basis, the Court concluded: "It follows, therefore, that a doctor may be liable only if the doctor's treatment decisions do not reflect his or her own best judgment, or fall short of the generally accepted standard of care" (97 NY2d at 399). Nestorowich demonstrates that allegations of a physician failing to use his or her "best judgment" necessitate some evidence as to whether or not the physician conformed "with the prevailing standard of care and accepted medical practice" (97 NY2d at 398).