Key Takeaway
Expert opinions based on incorrect medical records are inadmissible and insufficient for summary judgment. Court rejects defense experts who relied on switched notes.
In medical malpractice and personal injury litigation, expert testimony forms the backbone of most cases. However, the foundation upon which experts base their opinions must be solid and accurate. A recent First Department decision highlights a critical principle: when experts rely on incorrect medical records, their opinions become worthless in the eyes of the law.
This issue frequently arises in complex medical cases where voluminous records can contain transcription errors, mix-ups, or other inaccuracies. Unlike situations involving biomechanical evidence or expert testimony scope, this case deals with a fundamental question of reliability — what happens when the very records an expert relies upon are demonstrably wrong?
The court’s ruling underscores that expert opinions are only as good as the data they’re built upon. When that foundation crumbles due to factual errors in the underlying records, even the most qualified expert’s opinion cannot save a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Mezzone v Goetz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08474 (1st Dept. 2016)
“However, plaintiff testified that his left foot wound did have pus emanating from the wound site, plaintiff’s expert opined that Dr. Ogbonna had switched his notes for the left and right foot, and the expert for St. Barnabas conceded that the notation was likely an error. Since defendants’ experts relied upon incorrect records, their opinions are insufficient to set forth entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Fleming v Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc., 70 AD3d 422 ).”
This case is terrific. It stands for the plain proposition: Wrong records? Opinion is out the door.
The broad scope of the cited to case of Fleming is even better: failure to address the pertinent records renders the opinion speculative.
Key Takeaway
Expert opinions must be grounded in accurate medical records to be admissible. When experts base their conclusions on demonstrably incorrect documentation — such as switched notes between body parts — courts will reject those opinions as insufficient for summary judgment, regardless of the expert’s qualifications or credentials.
