AC43955 - Perdikis v. Klarsfeld (Medical malpractice; general verdict rule; "In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff Dimitri Perdikis appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Jay H. Klarsfeld, a physician and surgeon. The plaintiff claims that the court erred by denying his request to charge the jury that it could not consider his postsurgical actions as a cause of his injuries and, instead, instructing the jury that it could consider his postsurgical actions in its causation analysis. We conclude that, in the context of the present case, the introduction of competent evidence—an expert medical opinion stated with a degree of reasonable medical probability—was required to allow the jury to infer a causal link between the plaintiff's actions and his injury. Because no such evidence was presented at trial, we conclude that the court's jury instruction was improper and harmful and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.")