Plaintiff’s family sued defendants after their family member died. The defendants blame the defendants for the death. The plaintiffs hired a Cardiology Expert Witness to provide testimony. The defendants filed a motion to exclude this testimony, which was denied by the court.
Facts: This case (Kelly Holt et al. v. St Luke’s Health System, et. al – United States District Court – Southern District of Texas – February 5th, 2018) involves medical malpractice. The plaintiffs have sued the defendants for negligence related to the death of their family member Jessie Holt. Holt was seen and treated in the emergency room at St. Luke’s. The plaintiff’s hired Dr. John MacGregor (Cardiology Expert Witness) to provide expert testimony. Dr. Tow, one of the defendants has filed a motion to exclude portions of this testimony.
Discussion: Dr. MacGregor’s opinion related to the relevant standard of care, how Dr. Tow did not follow that standard of care when treating Holt in the emergency room, and the connection between Dr. Tow’s negligence and Holt’s death three months after the visit to the emergency room. Dr. Tow argues that Dr. portions of Dr. MacGregor’s testimony are unreliable and based on speculation.
First, Dr. Tow has an issue with Dr. MacGregor’s opinion that Hold didn’t have a pulse when he passed out jogging at his fitness center. Dr. Tow argues that there is no evidence that supports that opinion. Dr. MacGregor opines that he based his description of the word “pulseless” by inferring from the facts and data. The court opines that Dr. MacGregor did not utilize fatally flawed information to come to his conclusions on this issue. In fact, it is an inference that is supported by facts.
Second, Dr. Tow argues that Dr. MacGregor’s opinion that Holt suffered a cardiac arrest should be excluded. Dr. Tow alleges that Dr. MacGregor provides no literature showing that this happened. Dr. Tow states that this testimony is improbable and a “logical leap”. Again Dr. MacGregor states that he based his opinion on facts that were documented in the record. Again the court agrees with the plaintiffs on this issue and states that any argument can be brought up during cross-examination.
Penultimately, Dr. Tow has an issue with Dr. MacGregor’s testimony that he had critical information at the time Holt was treated, but did not use that information. He states that this is based on false assumptions. Dr. MacGregor points to specific facts and data to support his opinion on this issue and the court opines that any criticism will again go to the weight of the evidence and not the admissibility.
Last. Dr. Tow has issues with Dr. MacGregor’s opinion about how Dr. Tow’s treatment caused Holt’s death. As before, the court agrees with the plaintiff, stating that Dr. MacGregor’s testimony is grounded in scientific methodology and procedures.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. John MacGregor is denied.