Expert Witness Blog
Plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice case against the defendants. Plaintiffs hired an Osteopathy Expert Witness to provide expert testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (Chesnut et al v. Memorial Hospital, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Kentucky – December 17th, 2019) involves a claim for medical malpractice. The plaintiff claims that the defendant should be held liable for negligent care of the plaintiff Debra Chestnut. The plaintiffs have hired J. Gregory Roberts, M.D (Osteopathy Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The plaintiffs state that they intend to call Dr. J. Gregory Roberts to testify that Dr. Jared Madden deviated from the accepted standard of care and that the deviation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The United States has filed a motion, asking the court to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Roberts, arguing that Dr. Roberts’ statements are not reliable under Daubert.
The court first notes that it will first consider whether Dr. Roberts is qualified to provide expert witness testimony in this case. The court states that Dr. Roberts is a board certified and vascular surgeon and has been in practice for over 17 years and is undoubtedly able to qualify on vascular matters.
In addition, the court opines that Dr. Roberts is competent to provide expert witness testimony under state law standards. Also, the court opines that vascular examinations are something that both MDs and DOs are expected to be able to perform. Also, the court opines that it is irrelevant that Dr. Roberts is not the same type of doctor as Dr. Madden or that he is not familiar with osteopathic medicine as a whole.
The court also opines on the reliability of Dr. Roberts’ testimony. The court states that, in order to form an opinion on whether Dr. Madden met the standard of care, Dr. Roberts first reviewed Ms. Chestnut’s medical records. The United States argues that Dr. Roberts’ testimony is impermissibly speculative. The court notes that the main issue is whether Dr. Madden applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
The court also states that just because Dr. Roberts’ reasoning focuses largely on what Dr. Madden missed does not mean that Dr. Roberts’ testimony should be excluded because it is impermissibly speculative in nature. The court notes that Dr. Roberts’ reports and deposition testimony detail the alleged inadequacies of Dr. Maddens’ examination. Thus, the court opines that Dr. Roberts’ testimony applied scientifically valid principles.
In addition, the court also finds that Dr. Roberts’ testimony about causation is sufficiently reliable under Rule 702.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. J. Gregory Roberts is denied.