How have the courts interpreted instruction 2 in a medical malpractice case?

The second criticized instruction ² was apparently taken verbatim from an instruction approved in Norden v. Hartman, 134 Cal.App.2d 333, 285 P.2d 977. Again, this instruction cannot be considered alone. It immediately followed the instruction in which the court correctly defined the degree of learning and skill, and the duty of care, required of the doctor. Taken together with that instruction, it does not misstate the law in referring to 'more than one recognized method of diagnosis or treatment.' The court is not required to restate all his instructions in each sentence thereof.

The same, we think, can be said of a third instruction ³ [187 Cal.App.2d 202] criticized by appellants. In this case the jury could well have found that the death 'could not have been reasonably anticipated.' The instruction does not, as appellants suggest, tell the jury that that is what happened; it does correctly state what the applicable law is. See Tucker v. Lombardo, 47 Cal.2d 457, 464-465, 303 P.2d 1041.

3. The court properly refused appellant's instructions.