This matter arises out of a medical malpractice action filed by Plaintiffs Tyler Grenier, individually, and Jenna Grenier, individually and as next friend of J.A.G., a minor, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) for alleged medical negligence at Tripler Army Medical Center (“Tripler”) related to the medical care by Defendant’s employees for prenatal care and labor of Plaintiff Jenna Grenier (“Jenna”), and the subsequent delivery of J.A.G.
Severe physical injuries sustained by Jenna Grenier and J.A.G. are alleged as well as the negligent infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff Tyler Grenier (“Tyler”) and Jenna; Plaintiffs’ loss of filial consortium; and Tyler’s loss of spousal consortium.
Plaintiffs sought to exclude certain portions of opinions rendered by Defendant’s expert witness, Dwight J. Rouse, M.D., because “they are not based on sufficient facts or data and they are not the product of reliable principles and methods.”
Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness
Dwight J. Rouse is board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Maternal-Fetal Medicine. He is the Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and an actively practicing maternal fetal medicine attending at Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiffs argued that, although Rouse’s testimony is relevant and his qualifications are not in issue, Rouse got a key fact wrong and thus any opinions relying on that wrong information should be excluded.
According to Rouse, “Grenier’s contention that she requested a cesarean delivery instead of operative vaginal delivery is at variance with the contemporaneous medical records. A low forceps delivery is what was performed and it was not foreseeable that mother or infant (or both) would suffer trauma. There is nothing in the medical record or the deposition testimony of the doctors or nurses to indicate that the forceps delivery was anything but easy and straightforward, or was performed in a manner outside the standard of care.”
Plaintiffs claimed that Rouse “cherry-picked one statement” and omitted relevant facts in medical records.
The Court held that Rouse’s opinions relate to the issue of medical standard of care and not causation based on epidemiological studies. If he has relied on a non-existent fact, has misconstrued the medical records, or his analysis is otherwise shaky, then pointing out any such failures is appropriate for cross-examination and not exclusion where the expert’s qualifications and relevance of his opinions are not in issue.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the testimony of expert witness Dr. Dwight J. Rouse.
Key Takeaway:
Plaintiffs argued that, although Rouse’s testimony is relevant and his qualifications are not in question, Rouse got a key fact wrong. Therefore, any opinions relying on that incorrect information should be excluded. The Court held that Rouse’s opinions pertain to the issue of medical standard of care rather than causation based on epidemiological studies. Thus, highlighting any such errors is appropriate for cross-examination rather than exclusion, given that the expert’s qualifications and the relevance of his opinions are not in dispute.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Grenier Et Al V. United States Of America |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv396 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Order Date; | September 4, 2024 |
Leave a Reply