81 results for 'cat:"Experts" AND cat:"Medical Malpractice"'.
J. Schlegel finds that the trial court properly found for a medical provider on a patient's medical malpractice claim. In this case, the patient did not present expert testimony on the issue of causation on his allegation that nursing staff failed to provide prompt treatment for an infection in his
left leg, resulting in the amputation of his left leg above his knee. The patient has a complicated medical history, including years of drug addiction, and expert testimony would have to be required to show that the medical provider's deviation from the standard of care led to his amputation. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Schlegel, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 23-CA-452, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Savoie finds that the trial court improperly denied the hospital's dilatory exception of prematurity filing, which argues that the patient's lawsuit falls under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (LMMA), and thus a medical review panel must review it first. The trial court relied on inapplicable precedent when making its ruling, the patient's allegations require expert medical testimony about the hospital's standard of care, and the hospital performing the assessment of the patient as one at high risk of fall is within the scope of its licensed activities, which all fall under the LMMA. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Savoie, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: CA-23-434, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
[Consolidated.] J. Lanzinger finds the trial court improperly granted the estate's motion to limit the hospital's cross-examination of its expert witness regarding the suspension of his medical license. The suspension was the direct result of fraudulent bookkeeping, which reflects directly on the witness's truthfulness and character and may have affected the ultimate decision of the jury. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lanzinger, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1518, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Cetrulo finds that radiologists were improperly granted summary judgment in claims contending they misread x-rays that had been requested to determine whether a needle had broken off in a patient's knee during surgery because an orthopedist who may have lacked qualifications to testify as an expert in the field of radiology had been qualified to testify concerning the radiologists themselves. Reversed in part.
Court: Kentucky Court Of Appeals, Judge: Cetrulo, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 2023-CA-0748-MR, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Longoria finds that the lower court properly denied the doctor's dismissal motion in this health care liability lawsuit stemming from a procedure to remove a possible lipoma that allegedly resulted in an injury to the patient's liver. The doctor contends that the expert report is insufficient as to causation, but the court notes that the report "need not marshal all the plaintiff's proof necessary to establish causation at trial." Also, the expert sufficiently linked "his conclusions with the underlying facts." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Longoria, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 13-22-00504-CV, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Arterburn finds the trial court improperly granted summary judgment to a hospital on medical malpractice claims filed by a widow and estate administrator after her husband died following an emergency room visit. The husband died at home from coronary artery disease after the emergency room doctor diagnosed and treated him for a head injury incurred at work. The court improperly denied the wife's motion to compel and granted the hospital’s motion for a protective order. Though the court correctly received the doctor's affidavit, it improperly declined to receive the wife's expert's affidavit stating the hospital violated standards of care involving the husband's history of heart disease. Reversed in part.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Arterburn , Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: A-23-339, Categories: Negligence, experts, medical Malpractice
J. Nardacci denies in part a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death medical malpractice suit against a federally funded healthcare provider, finding the family estate’s expert witness, a cardiologist, is qualified to provide testimony regarding the decedent’s cause of death. The decedent died from a heart attack brought on by a rare heart condition shortly after he was taken off Clozaril, a medication to treat his mental health condition. However, three of the four healthcare personnel named in the suit are dismissed due to a lack of expert testimony implicating them in decedent’s death.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Nardacci, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv574, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: experts, Wrongful Death, medical Malpractice
J. Davis denies the government's motion for summary judgment in the deceased Vietnam veteran's wife's medical-malpractice suit on her husband's behalf, and denies the wife's motion for leave to file a motion to strike the government's expert physicians' surrebuttal declarations. The wife has exhausted her administrative remedies, since the Veteran's Administration took nearly two years to issue a decision on her claim, and did so after this litigation began. Additionally, questions of fact remain as to whether the wife can establish that the Veterans Administration's failure to dialyze the veteran led to his cardiac arrest. Finally, a prior order in this case did not bar admission of the expert surrebuttals.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Davis, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 0:21cv1431, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Thierry finds that the trial court properly dismissed the hospital patient's medical malpractice claim over a severe pressure ulcer she developed while in a medically induced coma. The alleged malpractice happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the patient failed to meet the "heightened burden" of the state's Health Emergency Powers Act by proving gross negligence or willful misconduct had occurred. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Thierry, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: CA-23-562, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Keough finds the trial court properly granted the doctor's motion in limine to exclude questions regarding whether his hospital privileges had been revoked at any point during his medical career. The possibility of prejudice or jury confusion outweighed any probative value related to the standard of care he provided to the patient. The patient was able to provide expert testimony throughout the trial and also questioned the doctor about why he decided to stop delivering babies, all of which was sufficient to create an inference that his failure to properly deliver the patient's baby was based on a breach of the standard of care. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Keough, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-960, Categories: Evidence, experts, medical Malpractice
Per curiam, the Kansas Supreme Court finds a lower court properly dismissed a patient's medical malpractice claims against a surgeon. The patient, who failed to obtain an expert witness, argued that she was entitled to relief after the surgeon removed part of her pancreas instead of her liver. However, the surgeon sufficiently showed in court that the common-knowledge exception did not apply to his removal of the wrong organ. Reversed.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 124946, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Silva finds that the lower court improperly overruled the doctors' objection to an expert report in this medical malpractice case. The expert report fails to adequately explain how the alleged breach of care caused the appellee's injuries, and it also "fails to address foreseeability." However, the patients will be given a chance to cure the report's deficiencies. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Silva, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00234-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, experts, medical Malpractice
J. Benavides finds in this interlocutory appeal that the lower court improperly denied the appellants' dismissal motion in this health care liability action alleging that a patient was not properly placed on a gurney. The appellee failed to properly file the expert report as required, specifically as to the "mandatory deadline." Also, the appellants' did not waive their right to dismissal by participating in discovery or waiting to file the dismissal motion. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Benavides, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 13-23-00353-CV, Categories: Civil Procedure, experts, medical Malpractice
J. Reynolds Fitzgerald finds that the lower court improperly dismissed malpractice claims brought against an orthopedist and hospital after arthroscopic knee surgery led to a staph infection that ultimately required total knee replacement. The patient's medical expert raised triable issues of fact as to whether infection should have been suspected earlier and whether tests should have been performed to rule out the possibility. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Reynolds Fitzgerald, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 535732, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Bowman finds that the lower court improperly found in favor of a medical center after a former patient claims it misdiagnosed her cancerous mass as benign. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the center after finding that the patient's out-of-state expert was not qualified to give an opinion on Washington's standards of care in this regard, but the comparison between the national standard of care and Washington's own standards do not differ too wildly. The expert showed that he was familiar with the national standards, and because Washington follows those by and large, he was not disqualified from testifying on the case. Reversed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bowman, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 85197-7-I, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Mendez-Miro grants the hospital and doctors' motion to exclude the testimony of one expert, but denies their motion to exclude another's testimony and a supplement to a motion in limine. The first expert, a neurologist, came to broad conclusions about the standard of care that do not rest on reliable scientific methodologies or grounds. The hospital and doctors' contentions that the second, testifying as a Life Care Planner, engaged in unsupported speculation are not sufficient reason to exclude his testimony. The supplement, finally, does not include any new theories or evidence surprising to the hospital or doctors, and is harmless.
Court: USDC Puerto Rico, Judge: Mendez-Miro, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv1431, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Cadish finds the county court properly ruled in favor of the surgeon in this medical malpractice suit. The patient sustained a femoral nerve injury during a hip replacement and filed this suit alleging negligence and lack of informed consent. Though the patient says that certain expert testimony containing legal fallacies should not have been allowed, a doctor stating the surgery was properly completed, and the injury happened incidentally is not a legal fallacy. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 85163, Categories: Negligence, experts, medical Malpractice
J. Parker finds that the lower court properly denied the appellants' motion to dismiss this health care liability action stemming from the death of a nursing home resident. The resident allegedly died from hypothermia after a window was left open at the assisted living facility where she lived. The nurse and the director challenge the proffered experts' qualifications "to opine on the applicable health care standards." However, the experts included two licensed nursing home administrators and a forensic pathologist. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Parker, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 07-23-00392-CV, Categories: Health Care, experts, medical Malpractice
J. Kilbane finds the lower court improperly granted the hospital's motion in limine to exclude the estate's expert witness. The physician testified with the required degree of medical certainty the hospital's failure to recognize symptoms of acidosis and renal dysfunction was the proximate cause of the decedent's death. Although the physician could not testify the exact cause of the decedent's ischemic bowel, such specificity was not necessary to establish proximate cause; therefore, the expert testimony should have been admitted and the hospital's motion for summary judgment denied. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Kilbane, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-659, Categories: experts, Wrongful Death, medical Malpractice
J. Cates finds that the lower court properly found for the doctor in a medical malpractice suit stemming from a patient's death. The court did not err in allowing the defense expert to opine regarding other possible causes of the patient's death. His testimony that the patient could have died of stroke was based upon the patient's medical history and not mere speculation. Further, it correctly refused to admit the patient's death certificate into evidence as the cause of death listed on the certificate was an opinion of the coroner, but not based on any postmortem examination. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Cates, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 220552, Categories: experts, Wrongful Death, medical Malpractice
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court properly ruled for the estate in claims contending plaintiff developed an eye infection requiring surgical removal following cataract surgery. Medical experts testified that nursing staff failed to properly administer anti-inflammatory steroid eye drops and did not transfer plaintiff to an emergency department after infection set in. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: CA 22-01992, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court improperly dismissed claims contending a dental practice improperly extracted a patient's tooth because the patient's expert affidavit did not provide an opinion as to whether one of the dental professionals deviated from the standard of care. Reversed in part.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: CA 23-00087, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Ortego finds that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the cardiovascular institute in a patient's medical malpractice suit alleging that its failure to recognize a blockage in his carotid artery caused him to suffer a stroke. The patient did not give evidence from an expert witness to support his claim or evidence opposing the motion for summary judgment. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Ortego, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: CA-23-486, Categories: Civil Procedure, experts, medical Malpractice
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court improperly dismissed medical malpractice claims contending the patient suffered a perforated bowel during an improperly performed right salpingo-oophorectomy. Expert opinions were neither conclusory nor speculative, and nothing disputed that the hospital had not used or had available rectal contrast during the procedure. Reversed in part.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: CA 22-1342, Categories: experts, medical Malpractice
J. Molaison finds that the trial court should not have denied an animal hospital's motion for summary judgment on a dog owner's claim that the dog was misdiagnosed. In this case, the dog owner's expert did not meet the statutory criteria because she did not graduate from an accredited school of veterinary medicine, was not licensed to practice veterinary medicine, and was not practicing veterinary medicine. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Molaison , Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 23-C-510, Categories: Negligence, experts, medical Malpractice