Published by Arfaa Law Group
In a medical malpractice case, an expert must do more than identify care that may have fallen short. The expert must also explain how that care caused the injury the patient claims. A recent decision illustrates how unreliable reasoning and incomplete expert disclosures can end a case before trial. If you believe delayed diagnosis or treatment worsened your condition, it is advisable to consult a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney about preserving the evidence needed to prove causation.
Case Setting
Reportedly, the patient underwent emergency surgery in June 2022 for a tear in his ascending aorta. After the operation, intensive care staff noted confusion, followed by weakness in both legs. Neurology recommended imaging to investigate a possible stroke, but the hospital deferred an MRI because transport and reduced monitoring posed safety concerns while the patient remained unstable. An MRI performed several days later showed a stroke. The patient later described ongoing cognitive and physical difficulties, while the hospital maintained that his physical strength had substantially recovered.
Allegedly, the patient, through his power of attorney, sued the hospital and treating physicians in federal court. The complaint asserted that the providers delayed imaging, failed to manage blood pressure appropriately, and did not consider a lumbar drain soon enough, worsening the stroke’s effects. After discovery, the hospital asked the court to exclude two experts’ causation opinions. The trial court excluded both and granted summary judgment because the patient had no admissible expert testimony connecting the challenged care to lasting injury. The patient appealed those rulings.
How Courts Evaluate Expert Proof
On appeal, the court reviewed the expert exclusions for abuse of discretion and the summary judgment decision anew. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires an expert’s opinion to rest on sufficient facts and reliable reasoning. The first expert said earlier intervention would have prevented permanent deficits, but the court found he had not adequately accounted for contrary evidence concerning the patient’s later physical recovery. The medical literature he cited also did not support the certainty of his proposed treatment benefit. The court therefore upheld exclusion of that causation opinion.
The second expert was disclosed as a witness on the standard of care. His report did not set out a causation opinion, and he confirmed in deposition that he would defer causation questions to other specialists. Federal procedural rules require an expert report to identify the opinions the witness will offer and their bases. An undisclosed opinion generally cannot be used unless the omission was justified or harmless. The patient did not establish either exception, so the court upheld exclusion of this expert’s later causation testimony as well.
Speak with a Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice claims often depend on timely review by qualified experts who can explain both the standard of care and the cause of an injury. If you or a loved one suffered harm due to negligent medical care, it is important to understand what evidence you need to recover damages in a medical malpractice case, and you should speak with an attorney. The Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys at Arfaa Law Group can assess your case and aid you in pursuing any damages you may be owed. Call (410) 889-1850 or use the firm’s online contact form to request a free consultation.