Nowatske v. Osterloh

198 Wis. 2d 419, 543 N.W.2d 265 (1996)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nowatske v. Osterloh

Wisconsin Supreme Court
198 Wis. 2d 419, 543 N.W.2d 265 (1996)

Play video

Facts

After experiencing blurred vision in his right eye, Kim Nowatske (plaintiff) was referred to Dr. Mark Osterloh (defendant), a retina specialist who diagnosed Nowatske as having a retinal detachment and recommended a surgical procedure to correct the problem. On the morning following surgery, Dr. Osterloh performed an examination of Nowatske’s eye to assess the success of the procedure. The parties disputed whether Osterloh measured the internal pressure of the eye, known as an IOP. Several days later, Nowatske was seen by Dr. Osterloh for another follow-up appointment. At that time, Dr. Osterloh informed Nowatske that he would be permanently blinded in his right eye. Nowatske, and his wife Julie, filed suit against Dr. Osterloh claiming that the doctor’s negligent treatment, including the physician’s failure to perform the IOP, caused him to lose his eyesight. At trial, both parties presented expert testimony favorable to each side’s position. At the close of the evidence, the trial court read for the jury, over Nowatske’s objection, three paragraphs from the standard jury instruction pertaining to medical malpractice. The first paragraph noted, in part, that Dr. Osterloh was required to use the “degree of care, skill, and judgment” usually exercised in the same or similar circumstances by the average specialist who was in a practice similar to Dr. Osterloh. The second and third paragraphs noted, in part, that a physician must use reasonable care and that a physician can be found negligent for failing to exercise the required care, skill, and judgment in administering the method chosen, respectively. The jury found for Dr. Osterloh. The trial court dismissed Nowatske’s complaint. Nowatske appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Abrahamson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership