Conn v. United States
2012 WL 3064111, 880 F.Supp.2d 741, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102604 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Mississippi medical malpractice cases, an expert witness must clearly articulate a specific, objective standard of care that a minimally competent physician would follow, rather than merely stating personal recommendations or vaguely referencing broad clinical guidelines.
Facts:
- On February 10, 2009, John Conn experienced chest pains and visited Stone County Hospital before transferring to the G.V. “Sonny” Montgomery V.A. Medical Center (V.A.) in Jackson, Mississippi.
- Upon arrival at the V.A., Conn’s chest pains had subsided, but he had elevated troponin I levels (0.17) and nonspecific EKG changes, including an incomplete right bundle branch block.
- The V.A. kept Conn overnight for observation; his troponin I levels trended down, and he had no episodes on telemetry monitoring; he was placed on omeprazole for possible GERD and discharged the next day as 'asymptomatic' without undergoing an ECHO test.
- Unbeknownst to Conn or the V.A. at the time of discharge, Conn had a 90-percent blockage in his left descending artery.
- Two days after his V.A. discharge, Conn returned to the Stone County Hospital with chest pains, suffered a massive heart attack, and had to be resuscitated in the emergency room.
- Conn submitted his medical records to Dr. Mark Strong, who reviewed them and prepared an expert report for Conn's lawsuit, stating that Conn suffered an acute myocardial infarction on February 10, 2009, and the V.A.'s treatment was inappropriate.
Procedural Posture:
- John Conn and his wife filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the United States government in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The United States government filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Conn's expert report failed to establish an objective standard of care, a breach of that standard, and causation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an expert medical report that relies on personal recommendations, vague statements, and unspecified clinical practice guidelines from medical associations sufficiently establish an objective standard of care required to sustain a medical malpractice claim under Mississippi law?
Opinions:
Majority - Carlton W. Reeves
No, an expert medical report that relies on personal recommendations, vague statements, and unspecified clinical practice guidelines does not sufficiently establish the objective standard of care required for a medical malpractice claim in Mississippi. Under Mississippi law, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must prove a specific and objective standard of care that a minimally competent physician would follow, and this must be established by expert testimony. Dr. Strong's report failed to meet this requirement because his statements regarding specific therapies (e.g., beta-blockers, anti-platelet therapy) were merely observations of actions not taken, not declarations of actions a minimally competent physician would take. His "professional recommendation" for diagnostic coronary angiography or "some type of pre-discharge risk stratification" were subjective personal opinions or too imprecise, which the Mississippi Supreme Court has explicitly rejected as establishing a standard of care. Furthermore, his reliance on "what the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association recommend" was insufficient because he failed to identify a specific publication within the Guidelines series or any specific recommendation within a publication, and even if he had, he did not state that such recommendations constituted the standard of care for a minimally competent physician. While acknowledging a split among courts on the use of clinical practice guidelines, the court, making an Erie guess for Mississippi law, suggested they could be admissible if they specifically describe the actions of a minimally competent physician, but Dr. Strong's report did not meet this threshold. Therefore, because Conn failed to present an expert report establishing an objective standard of care, he failed to establish a prima facie case for medical malpractice, and summary judgment for the government was warranted.
Analysis:
This case underscores the critical importance of specificity and objectivity in expert testimony for medical malpractice claims, particularly in jurisdictions like Mississippi. It clarifies that an expert's personal preferences or vague references to broad medical guidelines are insufficient to establish the required standard of care. The ruling offers guidance on the potential, albeit limited, role of clinical practice guidelines, suggesting they may be admissible if specifically tied to the actions of a minimally competent physician, but they are not a standalone substitute for a clearly articulated standard. This decision reinforces the gatekeeping function of courts regarding expert testimony and places a high burden on plaintiffs to present clear, evidence-based standards of care.
