Virginia Medical Malpractice - a Lawyer's Publication (12 of 13)
This is 12 of 13 reprinting Mr. Waterman’s leading medical malpractice article, “Healthcare Policies, Procedures & Protocols: Discoverability, Abuse, Admissibility & Legislation,” featured in VTLA’s The Journal for Spring, 2008.
G. PP&P are admissible as “notice” evidence.
PP&P are admissible to show “notice”. Over half a century ago, in New Bayshore Corp. v. Lewis, the Virginia Supreme Court pronounced the defendant’s safety rules and instructions admitted into evidence “indicate that defendant was aware of the potential dangers involved.” A pending punitive damages claim in a medical malpractice case, for example, inherently imports proof of defendant’s prior knowledge and awareness. That means a patient seeking punitive damages can – indeed, must – introduce evidence of defendant’s notice. Clearly healthcare providers have notice if pertinent PP&P were in use.
H. PP&P may be admissible on other evidentiary grounds.
The foregoing bases for admission of PP&P in evidence is not meant to be exhaustive. They merely are some examples. The big legal picture is that there really are many independent grounds for PP&P being admitted in evidence; a patient never should not get tripped up on threshold point of discoverability.
