Rochester Medical Malpractice and Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
When medical errors occur during labor and delivery, the consequences can be life-altering; not just for the newborn, but for the entire family. Recovering compensation can be challenging, though, as claims involving birth-related injuries often hinge on expert medical testimony. A recent decision from a New York court offers insight into how expert testimony is scrutinized under federal standards and how courts approach motions for summary judgment when causation and standard of care are in dispute. If you believe medical negligence contributed to your child’s injury at birth, you should talk to a Rochester medical malpractice attorney about your potential claims as soon as possible.
Factual Background
It is reported that the plaintiffs, a mother and her minor child, brought suit against the United States, a hospital, a health system, and two physicians, alleging that negligent medical care during labor, delivery, and neonatal treatment caused the child to suffer permanent injuries, including cerebral palsy and hemiplegia. The claims included three causes of action: negligence and/or medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and loss of services based on the child’s anticipated inability to work.
It is alleged that the plaintiffs supported their case with expert testimony from physicians in the fields of obstetrics, anesthesiology, and pediatric neurology. These experts offered opinions connecting the alleged substandard care to the child’s neurological injuries. However, the defendants challenged the admissibility of those opinions, arguing that the plaintiffs’ experts lacked the proper qualifications or relied on speculative methods.
It is further reported that all parties moved for summary judgment. The United States contended that the plaintiffs failed to present admissible expert testimony on key issues of standard of care and causation. The hospital defendants asserted they could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independently contracting physician and that their staff’s conduct during neonatal care met the appropriate medical standards. The plaintiffs, in contrast, sought partial summary judgment on their medical malpractice claim against one of the physicians involved.
Admissibility of Expert Testimony
The court began by analyzing the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the framework established by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under Rule 702, expert opinions must be both reliable and relevant, grounded in sufficient data, and rendered by professionals qualified in the relevant field. Judges are required to act as gatekeepers to prevent unreliable or speculative testimony from reaching the jury.
The court excluded some expert opinions offered by the plaintiffs. Specifically, the court found that the obstetrics expert, though permitted to testify generally about brain damage resulting from labor complications, could not offer opinions diagnosing specific neurological conditions like cerebral palsy and hemiplegia because he lacked the necessary pediatric neurology expertise. Similarly, the anesthesiology expert’s opinions on causation and standard of care were excluded. The court noted that the expert’s opinions lacked a direct basis in the reviewed medical records and that the plaintiffs did not meaningfully contest the objections raised by the defense, effectively conceding the issue.
The court then evaluated the parties’ summary judgment motions. The plaintiffs withdrew their claims regarding lack of informed consent, neonatal care, and the hospital’s vicarious liability for a specific physician’s conduct. Accordingly, the court dismissed those claims as unopposed. However, it found that genuine issues of material fact remained with respect to the central claim of medical malpractice. Though some expert opinions had been excluded, both sides still presented conflicting expert testimony on the remaining claims. Ultimately, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and set the case for trial.
Speak with an Experienced Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
Birth injury claims often involve intricate legal and medical issues that require careful navigation of procedural hurdles and evidentiary standards. If you or your child has suffered due to medical negligence during labor or neonatal care, the experienced Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers are ready to help. We have extensive experience handling complex birth injury litigation and can advise you of your rights. Contact us at 833-200-2000 or reach out online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.
