On March 12, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the defense jury verdict in Beard v. Everett Clinic, a medical malpractice case involving an unfortunate patient whose rare illness was difficult to diagnose and treat. By affirming the verdict and use of the jury instruction about the physician’s “exercise of medical judgment,” the Court reaffirmed that physicians and all health providers will be liable only if a jury determines they were negligent in providing care, not for a “bad result.”
The patient’s long-term physician addressed her new symptoms with medication adjustments, testing, and lab monitoring. After the patient’s condition worsened, she had emergency surgery and later died. Her estate claimed through expert testimony that the treating physician failed to meet the standard of care by not urgently referring her to an infectious disease specialist or ordering additional imaging. The physician testified about the care she gave her long-term patient and was supported by medical experts who testified she acted within the standard of care and was not negligent. The jury heard all the evidence in a seven-day trial and returned a defense verdict.
The appeal was about whether it was proper to give the standard “exercise of judgment” instruction which applies when a physician chooses among diagnostic or treatment options. It provides that if the choice was within the standard of care, the choice made is not negligent. Under Washington law the medical provider is only liable if they are negligent and that negligence causes the injury. The instruction is important in cases like this to make sure the jury follows the law.
Carney Badley Spellman attorney Gregory M. Miller served as amicus counsel for state and national associations of medical practitioners, including the Washington State Medical Association, Washington Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Washington Academy of Family Physicians, the American Medical Association, and the Washington State Hospital Association. They supported the defense position that the instruction was properly given to ensure the defendant physician would only be held liable if she had been negligent, and not just for a bad, if tragic, result and that a change to the instruction requiring more detailed documentation of medical decision-making would be problematic for how physicians practice, particularly in busy emergency rooms and clinics.
All nine Justices agreed that the instruction was appropriately given. The Court held the instruction may be supported by objective evidence in the record, including the physician’s actions, experience, chart notes, observations, assessments, and testimony about the care provided, but a detailed retrospective narrative of each step of the physician’s mental reasoning of her diagnostic process as the plaintiff requested, is not required. The decision reinforces that when the parties’ experts disagree about whether the standard of care was met, that issue is for the jury to resolve and, if the record supports the physician’s care as it did here, the jury verdict will not be disturbed.
