Shari L. Jensen and Jarel J. Jensen v. Radiologic Center, Inc. and Nick L. Nelson, M.D.

Summary

This memorandum and order addresses defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses and motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action involving an allegedly missed sternal mass on a breast MRI. The court denied both motions, concluding that the challenged expert testimony should not be excluded and that summary judgment was not warranted. The matter proceeds against Radiologic Center, Inc. and Nick L. Nelson, M.D.

Holdings

1. Dr. Kligerman's opinions were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert because he was qualified to evaluate the sternal abnormality, his opinions were based on the actual MRI and his experience, and his testimony was relevant and sufficiently reliable.
2. Dr. Kligerman's opinions satisfied Nebraska's locality rule because the record showed familiarity with medically relevant factors, including the actual MRI images, image quality, scanner, PACS system, available resources, and the applicable practice concerning reporting visible abnormalities.
3. Dr. Kligerman did not apply a heightened personal standard of care; his testimony described a standard at the low end of the applicable range, based on what even a junior trainee using the available equipment should have seen and reported.
4. Dr. Van Scoy-Mosher's opinions were admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert despite weaknesses in his ability to identify specific literature and possible inaccuracies concerning the MONALEESA study.
5. Dr. Van Scoy-Mosher's opinion that the negligence likely cost Jensen two to five years of life and eliminated the probability of becoming disease-free was not merely an inadequate loss-of-chance opinion; it was expressed with sufficient medical certainty and could support causation.
6. Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because the court did not exclude either plaintiffs' standard-of-care expert or causation expert, leaving plaintiffs with evidence supporting the essential elements defendants challenged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dr. Kligerman's opinions concerning the applicable radiology standard of care and the visibility of the sternal mass satisfied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
2. Whether Dr. Kligerman's standard-of-care opinions satisfied Nebraska's statutory locality rule.
3. Whether Dr. Van Scoy-Mosher's opinions concerning proximate cause, survival, and potential curability were sufficiently reliable and stated with adequate medical certainty under Rule 702 and Nebraska law.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because exclusion of plaintiffs' experts would prevent plaintiffs from proving the standard of care and proximate cause.

Disposition

other