Justia Medical Malpractice Opinion Summaries

Jessica Wiseman and her children sued Dr. Nathan Rencher and others for the wrongful death of Eric Wiseman, alleging medical malpractice and gross negligence. Rencher, the only defendant subject to Idaho's prelitigation screening panel requirement, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Wisemans failed to comply with this requirement. He supported his motion with the panel’s advisory decision, filed under seal. The district court granted Rencher’s motion, concluding that the Wisemans did not meet the prelitigation requirement based on the advisory decision. The Wisemans also sought to disqualify the district judge, which was denied.The district court, part of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho, ruled that the advisory decision could be considered to determine compliance with the prelitigation requirement. The court found the statutes ambiguous and concluded that they allowed limited review of the advisory decision. The court also ruled that the statutes controlled over conflicting Idaho Rules of Evidence. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rencher, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the Wisemans' compliance with the prelitigation requirement.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the prelitigation screening statutes unequivocally precluded judicial review of the advisory decision for any purpose. The court emphasized that the statutes clearly stated there should be no judicial review and that parties should not be affected by the panel’s conclusions. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Additionally, the court declined to disqualify the district judge on remand, distinguishing this case from precedent and finding no appearance of bias. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal, as both prevailed in part. View "Wiseman v. Rencher" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal, the court examined whether internal reports and documents created after alleged adverse events at nursing and assisted living facilities are discoverable or privileged under the New Jersey Patient Safety Act (PSA). In the first case, the plaintiff, Madeline Keyworth, claimed injuries from two falls at a skilled nursing facility and sought the facility’s internal incident reports. In the second case, the plaintiffs, Suzanne and Jonathan Bender, sought an incident report regarding an alleged attack on Diane Bender by another resident at an assisted living facility. Both facilities argued that the requested materials were privileged under the PSA’s self-critical-analysis privilege.The trial courts in both cases found that the self-critical-analysis privilege did not apply and ordered the defendants to disclose the materials. The Appellate Division reversed these decisions, concluding that the defendants had complied with the PSA’s procedural requirements, thus making the documents privileged and not subject to discovery.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the cases and held that the facilities did not comply with the PSA’s procedural requirements. Specifically, the court noted that the PSA requires a patient safety committee to operate independently from any other committee within the facility. The defendants’ certifications revealed that their committees did not adhere to this requirement, as they performed dual functions related to both patient safety and quality assurance. Consequently, the court determined that the disputed documents were not privileged under the PSA and were subject to discovery.The court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded the cases to the trial courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The main holding was that the facilities’ failure to comply with the PSA’s procedural requirements meant that the self-critical-analysis privilege did not apply to the disputed documents. View "Keyworth v. CareOne at Madison Avenue" on Justia Law

Pearl Ray and Andrew Ray, Sr. sued medical providers in Illinois state court for medical malpractice, which allegedly injured Pearl and caused Andrew to suffer a loss of consortium. They settled with all but one defendant. Pearl was enrolled in a federal health benefits plan, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) was the plan’s carrier. Under the plan, BCBSA sought reimbursement from the settlement for benefits paid to Pearl. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reduce BCBSA’s reimbursement by their attorney’s fees and costs under Illinois’s common fund doctrine.The case was removed to federal court by BCBSA, arguing federal question jurisdiction and federal officer removal. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the remand motion but later reconsidered and remanded the entire case, concluding it lacked federal question jurisdiction. BCBSA appealed, asserting federal question jurisdiction and federal officer removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The court held that federal question jurisdiction was not present, as federal common law did not govern the reimbursement dispute, following the precedent set by Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz. However, the court found that BCBSA met the requirements for federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, as it was acting under a federal agency (OPM) and had a colorable federal defense.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded, instructing the district court to exercise jurisdiction over the motion for adjudication while remanding the rest of the case to state court. View "Ray v. Tabriz" on Justia Law

A 13-year-old boy, Jawad Jumaa, was diagnosed with torticollis at Garden City Hospital and discharged. He was found dead the next morning, and an autopsy revealed bacterial meningitis as the cause of death. His parents, as co-personal representatives of his estate, filed a complaint against the hospital and two doctors for negligence, medical malpractice, and nursing malpractice, seeking damages under the wrongful death act (WDA), including lost future earnings.The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary disposition, which argued that lost future earnings were not recoverable under the WDA and that the plaintiffs had not proven such damages beyond speculation. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, relying on its previous ruling in Denney v Kent Co Rd Comm, which held that damages for lost future earnings were recoverable under the WDA. The Court of Appeals also concluded that the 1971 amendment to the WDA, which added the word "including," made the list of recoverable damages nonexhaustive and that the case Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm had implicitly overruled Baker v Slack.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Court of Appeals erred by not applying Baker, which had not been clearly superseded by the Legislature or overruled by the Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed Baker's holding that damages for lost earning capacity are not available under the WDA. The Court overruled Denney and Thorn v Mercy Mem Hosp Corp to the extent they were inconsistent with this opinion. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, Part II(B) of its opinion was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Estate Of Jumaa v. Prime Healthcare Services-Garden City LLC" on Justia Law

Shelly Blackston underwent a liposuction procedure performed by Dr. Alva Roy Heron, Jr. in Virginia. During the procedure, she experienced severe pain, which Dr. Heron attempted to alleviate with additional anesthesia. After returning to her home in Maryland, Blackston continued to suffer pain and developed an infection, leading to hospitalization and multiple surgeries. She filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, alleging medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed consent.The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County held a five-day trial, after which the jury found in favor of Blackston on both claims. The jury awarded her $2,300,900 in damages, including $2,000,000 in non-economic damages. Petitioners filed post-trial motions, including a motion for statutory remittitur, arguing that Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages should apply. The circuit court granted the motion in part, reducing the non-economic damages to $755,000, consistent with Maryland’s statutory cap.The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that Virginia’s damages cap applied because the injury occurred in Virginia where the procedure took place. The court reasoned that the infection, which constituted the injury, was introduced during the surgery in Virginia.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, holding that Virginia substantive law applied under the doctrine of lex loci delicti, which requires the application of the law of the state where the last element of the tort occurs. The court found sufficient evidence that Blackston suffered a cognizable injury during the surgery in Virginia, making Virginia’s damages cap applicable. Thus, the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland was affirmed. View "Doctor's Weight Loss Centers, Inc. v. Blackston" on Justia Law

In the first case, a young woman with severe headaches due to excess brain fluid had a shunt catheter implanted. She later returned to the emergency room with worsening symptoms, and a brain scan was performed. Dr. Swofford, a diagnostic radiologist, verified the scan results, but the emergency procedure to relieve her brain pressure failed, and she died. The plaintiff, representing the decedent's estate, sued Dr. Swofford and his practice for medical malpractice. The trial court ruled that the relevant specialty was diagnostic radiology, not neuroradiology, and thus excluded the plaintiff's neuroradiologist expert. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding neuroradiology to be the relevant specialty, allowing the expert to testify.In the second case, a plaintiff sued Dr. Colton for medical malpractice after multiple rhinoplasties resulted in a nasal deformity. Dr. Colton was certified in otolaryngology and facial plastic and reconstructive surgery. The plaintiff's expert, Dr. Armstrong, had the same certifications but spent most of his time on otolaryngology. The trial court found the expert's qualifications unclear and denied a motion to strike his testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the relevant specialty was facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, and excluded the expert because he did not spend the majority of his time in that specialty.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed both cases. It held that the Woodard decision, which conflated "specialty" and "subspecialty," was incorrect. The Court clarified that "specialty" refers to general board certifications recognized by major certifying entities and does not require matching subspecialties. In Stokes, the Court affirmed that diagnostic radiology was the relevant specialty, allowing the neuroradiologist to testify. In Selliman, the Court remanded the case to determine whether facial plastic and reconstructive surgery is a subspecialty, requiring further fact-finding by the trial court. View "Estate Of Horn v. Swofford" on Justia Law

In 2020, several residents at a skilled nursing facility died from coronavirus infections. Family members of the deceased sued the facility and its alleged alter egos, asserting claims including elder abuse, negligence, and wrongful death. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on agreements signed by family members rather than the decedents. The trial court denied the motion, finding no evidence that the family members had authority to sign on behalf of the decedents, and that the agreements did not bind the family members in their individual capacities. For one agreement where a family member had power of attorney, the court exercised its discretion to deny arbitration to avoid conflicting results.The Shasta County Superior Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. It found that the defendants did not provide evidence that the family members had authority to sign the arbitration agreements on behalf of the decedents. Additionally, the court ruled that the agreements did not bind the family members in their individual capacities. For the agreement involving a power of attorney, the court denied arbitration to prevent conflicting rulings between court and arbitration proceedings.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. It affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the defendants failed to establish that the family members were authorized agents of the decedents. The court also found that the family members did not sign the agreements in their individual capacities, and thus were not bound by them. Furthermore, the court upheld the trial court's discretion to deny arbitration for the claim involving a power of attorney to avoid conflicting rulings. The order denying the motion to compel arbitration was affirmed. View "Hearden v. Windsor Redding Care Center" on Justia Law

Dr. Thomas C. Franchini, the former Chief of Podiatry at the Department of Veterans' Affairs Maine Healthcare System at Togus, sued several publishers and reporters for defamation. Franchini alleged that articles written by the defendants, which described malpractice allegations related to his treatment of veterans at VA Togus, were libelous and defamatory. He also claimed negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation against some defendants.The United States District Court for the District of Maine granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Franchini was a voluntary public figure and had failed to plead actual malice in his Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The court determined that the issues surrounding the quality of care at VA Togus were matters of public concern and that Franchini had voluntarily injected himself into the controversy through his actions, including creating a blog and giving an interview to a reporter. The court also found that Franchini's claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation were not supported by sufficient evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that a public controversy existed regarding the quality of care at VA Togus and that Franchini had voluntarily become a limited-purpose public figure by engaging in public discussions about the controversy. The court also held that Franchini failed to show that the defendants acted with actual malice, as required for a public figure to succeed in a defamation claim. The court noted that the defendants had conducted due diligence in their reporting and included Franchini's statements in their articles. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Franchini v. Bangor Publishing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s daughter, Alexandrianna Lowe, who had an opioid addiction, was admitted to Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC) for complications related to Type 1 diabetes. Two days later, Lowe was found unresponsive, and hospital staff administered anti-opioid medication but failed to check her blood sugar levels. An autopsy revealed no illicit drugs in her system. Plaintiff filed a complaint against JSUMC and others, alleging negligence. At the time of filing, plaintiff had not been appointed administratrix ad prosequendum of her daughter’s estate and did not have access to Lowe’s medical records.The trial court dismissed Dr. Michael Carson from the case as he was not involved in the events leading to Lowe’s death. Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit of Merit (AOM) by Dr. Joseph Fallon, which defendants argued was insufficient because it did not name the surviving defendants, did not state that Dr. Fallon was a similarly licensed physician, and did not indicate that Dr. Fallon reviewed Lowe’s medical records. Without holding a Ferreira conference, the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to submit a sufficient AOM. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that the AOM submitted by plaintiff complied with N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27. The Court found that the AOM statute does not require the affiant to state that they reviewed medical records or to name a specific defendant by name. The Court emphasized the importance of holding a timely and effective Ferreira conference to resolve issues related to the AOM. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, including consideration of plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add Dr. Vikas Singh as a defendant. View "Moschella v. Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center" on Justia Law

Lynda Danhoff and her husband, Daniel Danhoff, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Daniel K. Fahim, M.D., and others, alleging that Fahim and Kenneth P. D’Andrea, D.O., had committed malpractice by perforating Lynda’s sigmoid colon during a surgical procedure. Following the procedure, Lynda experienced complications, including pain, fever, and elevated body temperature and blood pressure. A CT scan revealed that there was “free air and free material” outside Lynda’s colon, and Lynda had to have another surgical procedure to correct this issue. Lynda had four more surgeries to correct the perforation, which led to permanent medical conditions.The defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the standard of care or causation. The trial court found that the affidavit of merit submitted by plaintiffs’ expert was not sufficiently reliable to admit his testimony because the expert had failed to cite any published medical literature or other authority to support his opinion that defendants had breached the standard of care. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and submitted another affidavit from their expert. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the opinions of plaintiffs’ expert still were not supported by reliable principles and methods or by the relevant community of experts. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.The Michigan Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by inadequately assessing the reliability of a standard-of-care expert witness without appropriately analyzing the proposed testimony under MRE 702 or the reliability factors of MCL 600.2955. The court emphasized that neither MRE 702 nor MCL 600.2955 requires a trial court to exclude the testimony of a plaintiff’s expert on the basis of the plaintiff’s failure to support their expert’s claims with published literature. The court concluded that the lower courts erred by focusing so strictly on plaintiffs’ inability to support their expert’s opinions with published literature such that it was inadmissible under MRE 702. The case was reversed and remanded. View "Danhoff v. Fahim" on Justia Law