Nursing Expert Witness' Opinions on the Propriety of Treatment Recommendations Admitted

Nursing Expert Witness’ Opinions on the Propriety of Treatment Recommendations Admitted

This matter stems from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 21, 2023 when the vehicle driven by Plaintiff, Juwan Brown, and occupied by his parents, Clarence and Tawanna Brown, was struck by a commercial vehicle driven by Dashawn Brooks.

The commercial vehicle was owned by Penske Truck Leasing Co. and leased by Defendant Mayflower Laundry & Linen. As a result of the accident, Plaintiffs have alleged that they have sustained various injuries and damages.

Defendants retained Lynda Kopishke “to provide a rebuttal report in response to the reports of Plaintiffs’ life care planning experts.” In her reports, Kopishke opined on the medical necessity of treatment that is recommended by Plaintiffs’ medical and vocational consultants and included in the life care plan for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs argued that Kopishke’s opinions are “well beyond the scope of her expertise.”

Nursing Expert Witness

Lynda Kopishke, DL, MSN, RN received her diploma in Nursing from St. Francis Hospital School of Nursing in Wilmington, Delaware. After several years of successful practice, Kopishke attended Wilmington University, where she obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Nursing degree. At Widener University School of Law, Kopishke received her Doctorate of Laws in Health Care Policy.  She has served on various nursing boards at both the local and national levels. Kopishke’s practice settings include adult and neonatal intensive care, home health nursing, rehabilitation, Legal Nurse Consulting, and infusion therapy. 

Get the full story on challenges to Lynda Kopishke’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

Discussion by the Court

Plaintiffs focused on the qualification element of Rule 702, arguing that Kopishke, although she is a qualified nurse and life care planner, is not qualified to offer opinions related to the propriety of treatment recommendations because she is not a physician.

However, the Court held that she holds bachelor of science and master of science degrees in nursing, and a doctor of laws in health care policy. She has worked as an interim care and direct care nurse, providing skilled nursing assessments for home health clients and acted as a manager supervising workers in a home health agency, worked as a rehabilitation specialist and nursing supervisor, and has been a nursing instructor for fifteen years. In addition, she has worked as a consultant for attorneys and insurers, providing medical expertise including in the area of life care planning. Although she may not be the most qualified to offer an opinion on the necessity of future treatments, procedures, and services, that is a matter of weight for the jury to determine.

Held

The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the testimony of Lynda Kopishke.

Key Takeaway:

Kopishke has extensive experience as a rehabilitation specialist and nursing supervisor. Despite her lack of a medical degree, the Court refused to exclude her opinion on the medical necessity of treatment that is recommended by Plaintiffs’ medical and vocational consultants.

Case Details:

Case Caption:Brown Et Al V. Brooks Et Al
Docket Number:5:23cv2966
Court:United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
Order Date:November 05, 2024

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *