Published by Arfaa Law Group
When a patient undergoes emergency surgery, every moment of post-operative care matters. Hospitals and physicians are expected to act swiftly if complications arise, particularly when symptoms suggest neurological injury. Delays in diagnosis and treatment can result in permanent impairment, yet as a recent medical malpractice ruling makes clear, strong medical evidence is indispensable. Without reliable expert testimony, even serious allegations of malpractice cannot move forward. If you or a loved one has suffered life-changing complications after surgery, consulting an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney is an essential step in protecting your rights.
Case Setting
It is alleged that the plaintiff was transported to the defendant hospital in June 2022 with severe chest pain and was diagnosed with an ascending aortic dissection. The plaintiff underwent emergency surgery, which was completed without complication, and he was transferred to the intensive care unit under the supervision of the defendant physicians.
It is reported that shortly after surgery, the plaintiff exhibited signs of neurological decline. His medical chart reflected disorientation, confusion, and bilateral lower extremity weakness. A neurologist recommended an MRI due to concerns of a spinal cord infarction. The MRI was delayed several times for safety reasons, despite persistent symptoms. When the imaging was eventually performed on June 22, it revealed that the plaintiff had suffered a stroke.
It is alleged that the plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to take reasonable measures prior to this date, such as adjusting blood pressure management or considering a lumbar drain, both of which might have reduced the risk of neurological injury. Following discharge, the plaintiff required significant rehabilitation but continued to experience cognitive and physical deficits. He subsequently filed a malpractice suit, asserting negligence in the failure to diagnose and treat his post-operative strokes.
It is reported that the plaintiff designated expert witnesses to support his claims. One expert, a neurosurgeon, opined that the plaintiff’s lasting impairments resulted from delays in diagnosis and the lack of preventive measures. Another physician testified about the standard of care. The defendants, however, moved to exclude both experts from testifying on the crucial issue of proximate causation. They argued that the neurosurgeon lacked specialized training in vascular neurology or cardiothoracic surgery and relied on incomplete records and irrelevant literature. They further contended that the second expert was never disclosed as a causation witness, making his opinions inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Cases
On review, the court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires that expert opinions be both relevant and reliable, and the standards established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. The court concluded that the neurosurgeon’s testimony was based on tangential personal experience, insufficient medical data, and literature that did not address the precise surgical context. His opinions, therefore, failed the test of reliability.
As to the second expert, the court emphasized that Rule 26 requires parties to disclose the scope of expert testimony, and Rule 37 bars undisclosed opinions absent justification. Because the plaintiff had not identified this expert as offering causation testimony during discovery, the court excluded his opinions as well. Without any admissible expert testimony on causation, the plaintiff could not establish that the defendants’ actions, or inactions, were responsible for his permanent deficits.
Given these exclusions, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Under the prevailing law, medical malpractice claims require proof of the applicable standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and a causal connection between the deviation and the injury. Expert testimony is necessary unless the issue is obvious to a layperson, which was not the case here. The plaintiff’s inability to produce admissible expert testimony on causation proved fatal to his claims.
Meet with an Experienced Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Pursuing a medical negligence claim requires more than evidence of complications; it demands carefully prepared expert testimony that meets strict legal standards. If you or someone you love has been harmed due to delayed diagnosis or inadequate medical care, the experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group are ready to fight for your rights. Call our office at (410) 889-1850 or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation and learn more about your legal options.