Key Takeaway
Court grants summary judgment where plaintiff's expert failed to review actual ultrasound images, only relying on reports in medical malpractice causation dispute.
Expert Testimony Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases
In medical malpractice litigation, the quality and thoroughness of expert testimony often determines the outcome of a case. Courts scrutinize whether medical experts have adequately reviewed the relevant evidence before forming their opinions. A recent Second Department decision highlights a critical mistake that can doom a plaintiff’s case: relying solely on reports rather than examining the underlying medical images and data.
The foundation of any medical malpractice claim rests on establishing both that a healthcare provider deviated from accepted standards of care and that this deviation proximately caused the patient’s injury. When experts fail to review primary source materials — such as actual diagnostic images, lab results, or medical records — their opinions may be deemed insufficient to survive summary judgment motions. This principle is particularly important in cases involving diagnostic imaging, where the actual films or scans may reveal details not captured in written reports.
Understanding how causation defenses operate and what evidence courts require can be crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in medical malpractice cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Aliosha v Ostad, 2017 NY Slip Op 06055 (2d Dept. 2017)
“In attempting to refute the opinion of the defendant’s expert regarding good blood flow to the right testicle, the plaintiff’s expert did not actually review the ultrasound images on which the defendant’s expert opinion was based, but reviewed only the ultrasound report”
The case came down to proximate cause and the Court found proofs to be insufficient based upon the failure to review the actual films. Interesting.
Key Takeaway
This case demonstrates that expert opinions based solely on medical reports, without review of the underlying diagnostic images, may be insufficient to establish causation in medical malpractice cases. Courts expect thorough preparation from medical experts, including examination of primary source materials. The importance of contemporaneous records and comprehensive expert review cannot be overstated when attempting to establish or break the chain of causation in complex medical cases.
