Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligenceliabilityappealtrialverdicttestimonymalpractice

defendantnegligenceliabilityappealtrialtestimonymalpractice

Related Cases

American Radiology Services, LLC v. Reiss, 470 Md. 555, 236 A.3d 518

Facts

Martin Reiss was diagnosed with a renal tumor and an adjacent enlarged lymph node in 2011. Dr. Julio Davalos surgically removed Reiss's cancerous kidney but did not remove the lymph node due to its proximity to a major blood vessel. Over the next several years, Reiss received treatment from oncologist Dr. Russell DeLuca, who believed the lymph node was cancerous but also deemed it inoperable. After a series of imaging studies and treatments, Reiss's lymph node was confirmed to be cancerous and inoperable, leading him to file a medical malpractice action against the treating physicians, alleging negligence in failing to remove the lymph node.

Martin Reiss was diagnosed with a renal tumor and an adjacent enlarged lymph node in 2011.

Issue

Is expert testimony required to establish the medical negligence of a non-party physician in a medical malpractice case where the defendant denies liability and raises non-party negligence as part of its defense?

Rule

In a medical negligence action, a defendant must produce expert testimony to establish non-party medical negligence and causation unless the negligence is so obvious that it can be determined by laypersons.

Analysis

The court determined that the trial court erred in allowing the defendants to raise the issue of non-party negligence without the requisite expert testimony. The court emphasized that expert testimony is necessary to establish medical negligence and causation when such matters are outside the common knowledge of jurors. Since the defendants did not provide any expert testimony regarding the standard of care or breach by the non-party physicians, the court concluded that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.

The court determined that the trial court erred in allowing the defendants to raise the issue of non-party negligence without the requisite expert testimony.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling that the inclusion of non-party negligence on the verdict sheet was prejudicial.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.

Who won?

Martin Reiss prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals upheld the appellate court's decision to reverse the circuit court's ruling, emphasizing the necessity of expert testimony in establishing non-party negligence.

Martin Reiss prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals upheld the appellate court's decision to reverse the circuit court's ruling.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Humphries v. Detch, 227 W.Va. 627, 712 S.E.2d 795

Alm v. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., 134 Ill.App.3d 716, 480 N.E.2d 1263, 89 Ill.Dec. 520

Henson v. Klein, 319 S.W.3d 413

Healey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 N.Y.2d 596, 663 N.E.2d 901, 640 N.Y.S.2d 860, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,498

Hudson-Connor v. Putney, 192 Or.App. 488, 86 P.3d 106