Ward v. Schaefer, No. 22-1547 (1st Cir. 2024)
In Ward v. Schaefer, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed an appeal by Virginia Cora Ward, the administratrix of Edmund Edward Ward’s estate, challenging the verdict in favor of Dr. Ernst J. Schaefer. Edmund Ward, who suffered from a rare genetic deficiency inhibiting the production of a critical blood enzyme, participated in an experimental enzyme therapy developed by Dr. Schaefer and his team. The plaintiff argued that Dr. Schaefer had fraudulently induced Edmund Ward to join the experimental protocol without obtaining proper informed consent.
At trial, the jury ruled in favor of Dr. Schaefer, rejecting the plaintiff’s claims. On appeal, Virginia Ward contended that the district court had erred by excluding the patent for the experimental drug from evidence, arguing that it was crucial to establishing her case. However, the appellate court found that the district court’s decision to exclude the patent was appropriate because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues for the jury.
Furthermore, the First Circuit upheld the jury instructions provided by the district court. The appellate court concluded that the instructions correctly conveyed the relevant legal standards regarding the doctor-patient relationship and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence in cases where the harm would not ordinarily occur without negligence. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the medical condition Edmund Ward experienced during the experimental therapy was directly caused by the protocol.
As a result, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the verdict in favor of Dr. Schaefer.
