Court: Court of Appeals of MichiganJurisdiction: FederalCase Name: Goff v. NiverCitation: 2019 Mich. App. LEXIS 3160
Facts
In this medical malpractice case, the defendant obstetrician delivered the baby of the plaintiff. During the plaintiff’s delivery, the defendant obstetrician identified a second-degree tear in the perineum and surgically repaired the tear immediately. The plaintiff was discharged two days later. Thereafter, the plaintiff visited the defendant. The obstetrician diagnosed her with a tear in the external anal sphincter, but did not diagnose a rectovaginal fistula. It was later discovered that the plaintiff had a rectovaginal fistula.
The plaintiff’s tear was surgically repaired by another doctor at the University of Michigan Medical Center. However, the plaintiff continued to experience fecal leakage and underwent additional surgical procedures for the next two years. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant obstetrician and her professional corporation for medical malpractice.
The defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s obstetrics and gynecology expert on the issues of standard of care and causation. The trial court granted the defendants motion in limine. The plaintiff appealed against the grant.
The Expert
The plaintiff retained an expert that was board certified in obstetrics/gynecology and maternal-fetal medicine. The expert had been practicing medicine since 1989.
The expert testified that the plaintiff’s obstetrician failed to make a proper diagnosis and therefore violated the standard of care. However, the expert admitted that he had based his testimony upon his experience rather than scientific studies or literature. Similarly, the court agreed with the contention of the defendants that the expert’s testimony was not supported by any scientific data.
Held
The court held that it would not overturn the ruling of the trial court whether to admit or exclude the testimony of an expert unless there was an abuse of the discretion of the trial court, as trial court would be in the best position to test the reliability of the expert’s testimony.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide any scientific data or study to support the opinion of the expert obstetrician. Therefore, the decision of the trial court was reasonable and within the range of principled outcomes.
About the author
Wendy Ketner, M.D.
Dr. Wendy Ketner is a distinguished medical professional with a comprehensive background in surgery and medical research. Currently serving as the Senior Vice President of Medical Affairs at the Expert Institute, she plays a pivotal role in overseeing the organization's most important client relationships. Dr. Ketner's extensive surgical training was completed at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, where she gained hands-on experience in various general surgery procedures, including hernia repairs, cholecystectomies, appendectomies, mastectomies for breast cancer, breast reconstruction, surgical oncology, vascular surgery, and colorectal surgery. She also provided care in the surgical intensive care unit.
Her research interests have focused on post-mastectomy reconstruction and the surgical treatment of gastric cancer, including co-authoring a textbook chapter on the subject. Additionally, she has contributed to research on the percutaneous delivery of stem cells following myocardial infarction.
Dr. Ketner's educational background includes a Bachelor's degree from Yale University in Latin American Studies and a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) from SUNY Downstate College of Medicine. Moreover, she is a member of the Board of Advisors for Opollo Technologies, a fintech healthcare AI company, contributing her medical expertise to enhance healthcare technology solutions. Her role at Expert Institute involves leveraging her medical knowledge to provide insights into legal cases, underscoring her unique blend of medical and legal acumen.
