SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Washington DC CASE SUMMARY

Sylvia Pearson, Personal Representative, Estate of Barry Michael Pearson and Individually v. Medstar Washington Hospital Center, et al.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case No. 24-CV-1187

Decided: February 19, 2026

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a medical malpractice action on the theory of res ispa loquitor where the Petitioner’s expert witnesses failed to establish that the decedent would not have developed a fatal ulcer absent negligence.

Background

The Decedent was admitted to the Respondent hospital with chest pains. He subsequently developed an ulcer while in the care of the Respondents. The Decedent was never discharged from the hospital, and passed away three months after being admitted because of an ulcer. Petitioner is the personal representative of the Decedent. Petitioner sued the Respondents for negligence and medical malpractice. Petitioner proceeded on a theory of res ipsa loquitor. Petitioner argued that the ulcer would not have occurred but for the negligence of the Respondents, and therefore negligence could be inferred from the development of the ulcer alone. The trial court concluded that Petitioner’s expert witnesses failed to establish that the development of the ulcer would not have occurred in the absence of negligence and granted summary judgement on the issue of res ipsa loquitor. Petitioner appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of res ipsa loquitor and abandoned her ordinary negligence argument.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that Petitioner’s expert witness testimony failed to establish a claim under the theory of res ipsa loquitor. The Court of Appeals explained that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor allows a fact finder in a negligence suit to infer negligence based on the occurrence of an event alone. In a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must establish that the claimed injuries: “(1) ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence, (2) are caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3) are not due to any voluntarily action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.” The Court of Appeals found that Petitioner’s expert doctors and nurses failed to establish the first element, as they did not effectively rebut Respondents’ evidence that the Decedent’s comorbidities could have caused his ulcer. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals reiterated that res ipsa loquitor should seldom be applied in cases of medical malpractice in this jurisdiction due to the complex nature of infections and other complications which may arise despite the precautions taken by medical professionals.

Questions about this case can be directed to Grace Lonergan at (443-641-0562) or glonergan@tthlaw.com.