deviation standard in Virginia

2025Consequently, “expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.” Webb v. Smith, 276 Va. 305, 308 (2008) (quoting Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110, 113 (1986)).

2023In Raines, the Supreme Court held, “expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.” Id. at 113 (citations omitted).

2024A plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action generally must present expert testimony to establish “the appropriate standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and that such deviation was the proximate cause of damages.” Mayr v. Osborne, 293 Va. 74, 82 (2017) (quoting Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 267 (1994)).

2024Rule 5A:8(a). -6- Generally, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish “the appropriate standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and that such deviation was the proximate cause of damages.” Mayr v. Osborne, 293 Va. 74, 82 (2017) (quoting Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 267 (1994)).

2008IV We have said that, in medical malpractice cases, "expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages." Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 , 113, 341 S.E.2d 194 , 196 (1986); accord Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645 , 653, 222 S.E.2d 783 , 789 (1976).

2008IV We have said that, in medical malpractice cases, "expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages." Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 , 113, 341 S.E.2d 194 , 196 (1986); accord Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645 , 653, 222 S.E.2d 783 , 789 (1976).

2024Affirmed. 5 In medical negligence cases, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff and to meet that burden, Black was required to prove, through expert testimony, “the applicable standard of care, a deviation from that standard, proximate causation, and damages.” Rogers v. Marrow, 243 Va. 162, 167 (1992) (citation omitted). - 13 -

2008"In order to recover for medical negligence, the plaintiff ordinarily must prove through the use of expert testimony the applicable standard of care, a deviation from that standard, proximate causation, and damages." Rogers v. Marrow, 243 Va. 162 , 167, 413 S.E.2d 344 , 346 (1992) (emphasis added) (citing Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 , 115, 341 S.E.2d 194 , 197 (1986)).

2026Bitar v. Rahman, 272 Va. 130, 137-38 (2006). “[E]xpert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.” Perdieu v. Blackstone Fam.

2008Expert testimony is generally required to establish not only the appropriate standard of care and a deviation from the standard, but also "`that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.' " Perdieu v. Blackstone Family Practice Ctr., Inc., 264 Va. 408 , 420, 568 S.E.2d 703 , 710 (2002) (quoting Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 , 113, 341 S.E.2d 194 , 196 (1986)); accord Bitar, 272 Va. at 138 , 630 S.E.2d at 323 .

2024A plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action generally must present expert testimony to establish “the appropriate standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and that such deviation was the proximate cause of damages.” Mayr v. Osborne, 293 Va. 74, 82 (2017) (quoting Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 267 (1994)).

2024Rule 5A:8(a). -6- Generally, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish “the appropriate standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and that such deviation was the proximate cause of damages.” Mayr v. Osborne, 293 Va. 74, 82 (2017) (quoting Beverly Enters.-Va., Inc. v. Nichols, 247 Va. 264, 267 (1994)).

2008Expert testimony is generally required to establish not only the appropriate standard of care and a deviation from the standard, but also "`that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.' " Perdieu v. Blackstone Family Practice Ctr., Inc., 264 Va. 408 , 420, 568 S.E.2d 703 , 710 (2002) (quoting Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 , 113, 341 S.E.2d 194 , 196 (1986)); accord Bitar, 272 Va. at 138 , 630 S.E.2d at 323 .

2008Expert testimony is generally required to establish not only the appropriate standard of care and a deviation from the standard, but also "`that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.' " Perdieu v. Blackstone Family Practice Ctr., Inc., 264 Va. 408 , 420, 568 S.E.2d 703 , 710 (2002) (quoting Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 , 113, 341 S.E.2d 194 , 196 (1986)); accord Bitar, 272 Va. at 138 , 630 S.E.2d at 323 .

1987Dr. Fulcher's motions are based upon the contention that the Plaintiff has failed to prove by expert testimony (1) the standard of care to be observed by the Defendant physician; (2) a deviation from that standard; (3) that such deviation was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries; and (4) the claimed injuries and/or damages as dictated by Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645 (1976); Little v. Cross, 217 Va. 71 (1976); and Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110 (1986).

1986Health care providers are required by law to possess and exercise only that degree of skill and diligence practiced by a reasonably prudent practitioner in the same field of practice or speciality in Virginia. 1 We have held that expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation, was the proximate cause of the claimed damages. 2 Bly v. Rhoads, 216 Va. 645, 653 , 222 S.E.2d 783, 789 (1976); see also Little v. Cross, 217 Va. 71, 75 , 225 S.E.2d 387, 390 (1976).

2025Consequently, “expert testimony is ordinarily necessary to establish the appropriate standard of care, to establish a deviation from the standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.” Webb v. Smith, 276 Va. 305, 308 (2008) (quoting Raines v. Lutz, 231 Va. 110, 113 (1986)).

2008Exceptions to this rule exist only in "those rare cases in which a health care provider's act or omission is clearly negligent within the common knowledge of laymen." Raines, 231 Va. at 113 , n. 2 , 341 S.E.2d at 196 , n. 2 ; see, e.g., Coston v. Bio-Medical Applications of Va., Inc., 275 Va. 1 , 5, 654 S.E.2d 560 , 562 (2008) (plaintiff placed in defective chair by health care provider); Easterling v. Walton, 208 Va. 214 , 218, 156 S.E.2d 787 , 790-91 (1967) (foreign object left in patient's body by surgeon).

2008Exceptions to this rule exist only in "those rare cases in which a health care provider's act or omission is clearly negligent within the common knowledge of laymen." Raines, 231 Va. at 113 , n. 2 , 341 S.E.2d at 196 , n. 2 ; see, e.g., Coston v. Bio-Medical Applications of Va., Inc., 275 Va. 1 , 5, 654 S.E.2d 560 , 562 (2008) (plaintiff placed in defective chair by health care provider); Easterling v. Walton, 208 Va. 214 , 218, 156 S.E.2d 787 , 790-91 (1967) (foreign object left in patient's body by surgeon).

2006To be admissible, such medical expert testimony must be rendered to a "reasonable degree of medical probability." Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 , 78, 606 S.E.2d 819 , 825 (2005); see also Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475 , 479, 271 S.E.2d 419 , 421 (1980) ("[a] medical opinion based on a `possibility' is irrelevant, purely speculative and, hence inadmissible").

2006To be admissible, such medical expert testimony must be rendered to a "reasonable degree of medical probability." Pettus v. Gottfried, 269 Va. 69 , 78, 606 S.E.2d 819 , 825 (2005); see also Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475 , 479, 271 S.E.2d 419 , 421 (1980) ("[a] medical opinion based on a `possibility' is irrelevant, purely speculative and, hence inadmissible").

2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause

2006In a medical malpractice action, "a plaintiff must establish not only that a defendant violated the applicable standard of care, and therefore was negligent, the plaintiff must also sustain the burden of showing that the negligent acts constituted a proximate cause of the injury or death." Bryan v. Burt, 254 Va. 28 , 34, 486 S.E.2d 536 , 539-40 (1997); see also King v. Sowers, 252 Va. 71 , 76, 471 S.E.2d 481 , 484 (1996) ("[t]he relevant issue ... is whether the treatment rendered violated the applicable standard of care and whether any such breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause

2004Health Plan, 257 Va. 491, 498 , 514 S.E.2d 608, 612 (1999). (noting expert testimony may not be necessarywhere act or omission was clearly negligent within common knowledge of layman).

2004Health Plan, 257 Va. 491, 498 , 514 S.E.2d 608, 612 (1999). (noting expert testimony may not be necessarywhere act or omission was clearly negligent within common knowledge of layman).

1990Aubrey Huffman & Assoc., 237 Va. 340, 346 , 377 S.E.2d 615, 619 (1989) (surveyor’s duty to follow rule that monuments prevail over acreage measurements), expert testimony is required to establish the appropriate professional standard, to establish a deviation from that standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.

1990Aubrey Huffman & Assoc., 237 Va. 340, 346 , 377 S.E.2d 615, 619 (1989) (surveyor’s duty to follow rule that monuments prevail over acreage measurements), expert testimony is required to establish the appropriate professional standard, to establish a deviation from that standard, and to establish that such a deviation was the proximate cause of the claimed damages.

1976While arguably the trial court’s ruling is supported by precedent (see Virginia Railway and Power Co. v. Godsey, 117 Va. 167, 168-69 , 83 S.E. 1072, 1072-73 (1915)), we do not decide this issue.

1976While arguably the trial court’s ruling is supported by precedent (see Virginia Railway and Power Co. v. Godsey, 117 Va. 167, 168-69 , 83 S.E. 1072, 1072-73 (1915)), we do not decide this issue.