## Facts

- Richard E. Morrison went to Oscar B. Hunter Memorial Laboratories, Inc., pursuant to a physician’s order, for a urethral smear test.
- Clinical technician Tom MacNamara administered the test by inserting a cotton swab into Morrison’s urethra while Morrison was standing.
- After the first administration, Morrison reported feeling faint; MacNamara told him to sit and rest but did not examine him or obtain medical assistance.
- Within minutes, MacNamara asked whether it was acceptable to proceed with a second test; Morrison agreed.
- The second administration was again performed with Morrison standing; Morrison fainted, struck his head on equipment and the floor, and allegedly suffered permanent injuries (including loss of smell and taste).
- Morrison presented expert testimony that the accepted practice was to perform the test with the patient sitting or lying down.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicable standard of care for a nationally certified clinical laboratory and its technician in the District of Columbia is a national standard rather than a locality-based standard.
2. Whether the evidence supported submitting assumption of risk to the jury based on Morrison’s agreement to proceed with the second test after feeling faint.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to a directed verdict.

## Decision

- The court reversed the defense verdict and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court erred by using a locality-based standard of care and by refusing a national-standard instruction.
- The court held it was error to submit assumption of risk to the jury on the evidence presented.
- The court affirmed the denial of defendants’ motions for directed verdict, finding sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- For a nationally certified clinical medical laboratory operating in an urban jurisdiction, the standard of care is measured by the reasonably prudent conduct generally expected in similar institutions nationwide, not by a strict locality rule.
- The traditional locality rule rests on historical conditions (limited access to training, facilities, and communication) that do not justify lowering or localizing the standard for nationally regulated or certified medical services.
- Expert testimony grounded in nationally prevalent medical practices is relevant to establishing breach when a national standard governs and should not be discounted merely because the expert is from outside the jurisdiction.
- Assumption of risk requires evidence that the plaintiff subjectively knew of, and voluntarily accepted, the specific risk that caused the injury; a patient’s consent to proceed with a procedure after reporting discomfort does not, without more, establish acceptance of the risk of negligent administration and resulting traumatic injury.
- Where evidence supports competing inferences on breach and causation—such as performing a procedure in a position said to increase fainting risk after a prior complaint of faintness—directed verdict for the defendant is improper.

## Conclusion

The court replaced a locality-based malpractice measure with a national standard for a nationally certified medical laboratory and technician, and it required a new trial because the jury was instructed under an improper standard of care and was allowed to consider assumption of risk without legally sufficient supporting evidence.


Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555 (D.C. 1979)