Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict for physicians in a medical negligence action arising from complications following coronary artery bypass surgery. The court held that expert testimony concerning the medical standard of care is subject to the Daubert/Schafersman gatekeeping framework, but concluded that the district court appropriately evaluated the challenged testimony and did not abuse its discretion in admitting it.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court failed to perform its gatekeeping function under Daubert and Schafersman when it admitted the doctors' expert testimony regarding the medical standard of care.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the challenged expert testimony.
- Whether the district court erred in overruling the Estate's posttrial motions for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to strike expert opinions, and to alter or amend the judgment.
Holdings
- Expert testimony concerning the medical standard of care is subject to the trial court's general Daubert and Schafersman gatekeeping obligation, although the specific Daubert factors may or may not be pertinent depending on the nature of the testimony and the objections made.
- The district court did not abdicate its gatekeeping function because it considered the nature of the testimony, the objections, and the reliability of the experts' personal knowledge, and adequately explained its ruling on the record.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the defense experts' testimony that Langdon and Batter met the applicable standard of care.
- The district court properly overruled the Estate's posttrial motions because the expert testimony was properly admitted and the Estate showed no prejudicial error.
- The Estate adequately preserved its challenge to the expert testimony by objecting when the evidence was offered at trial after its motion in limine was overruled.
Key quotations
“Under the Daubert/Schafersman framework, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert’s opinion.” (474)
“Daubert makes clear that the factors it mentions do not constitute a “definitive checklist or test.”” (475)
“We do not mean that trial courts must always determine the admissibility of standard of care testimony in a medical malpractice case by analyzing all of the Daubert/Schafersman factors.” (481)
Factual background
Thomas Langdon performed coronary artery bypass surgery on Paul Hemsley and placed a chest tube in the anterior mediastinum. Several days later, fecal material emerged from Hemsley's chest incision, and a second operation revealed a transverse colon injury and contamination. Hemsley subsequently developed respiratory failure, peritonitis, and sepsis and died. At trial, the Estate's expert testified that Langdon breached the standard of care, while the defense experts testified that Langdon and Batter met the standard of care.
Procedural history
The Estate sued the doctors under the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act, alleging negligent medical care during and after coronary artery bypass surgery. Before and during trial, the Estate challenged the admissibility of the doctors' expert testimony concerning the medical standard of care under Daubert and Schafersman. The district court admitted the testimony, the jury found for the doctors, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.