Cárdenas v. Muangman

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs’ expert was qualified to testify about the national standard of care for a second-trimester dilation and evacuation procedure. The court further held that the expert’s testimony was sufficient to allow the jury to find that use of laminaria was required, reversing the trial court’s post-verdict judgment as a matter of law and reinstating the medical-malpractice verdict. The court affirmed dismissal of the husband’s loss-of-consortium claim because Virginia law governed that claim and did not recognize it.

Holdings

1. An expert is qualified to testify about a national medical standard of care when the testimony meets basic competency and relevancy requirements, addresses national norms, and is not based merely on local custom, personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture. Dr. Girard's testimony satisfied those requirements and was admissible.
2. Dr. Girard's testimony was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the national standard of care required use of laminaria before a second-trimester dilation and evacuation procedure.
3. Virginia law governed Camacho's loss-of-consortium claim because the marital relationship was domiciled in Virginia, and Virginia did not recognize a husband's claim for loss of his wife's consortium. The trial court properly dismissed that claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dr. Girard was qualified to testify about the national standard of care for a second-trimester dilation and evacuation procedure.
2. Whether Dr. Girard's testimony was legally sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find the applicable national standard of care by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Francisco Camacho's loss-of-consortium claim under District of Columbia choice-of-law principles.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded