Cincinnati, Ohio (February 21, 2024) - The Kentucky Supreme Court recently handed down a pair of opinions providing significant guidance for parties to medical malpractice cases. Here, two of Lewis Brisbois' partners explore the key takeaways from these decisions for medical providers.
Saint Elizabeth Medical Center Inc. v. Ronald N. Arnsperger Jr.
(Rejecting Plaintiff's Experts on Causation)
The Kentucky Supreme Court on January 18 rendered a "to be published" opinion in a medical malpractice case, reinstating a trial court's grant of summary judgment to a hospital based on the plaintiff's lack of expert testimony to establish causation between an incident at the hospital and his injury.
In the case, Saint Elizabeth Medical Center Inc. v. Ronald N. Arnsperger Jr. (2022-SC-0302-DG), the plaintiff was a baseball umpire with an extensive medical history involving his left ankle. He had been diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome and then injured the ankle while umpiring. He and his doctor agreed that a surgical repair was necessary.
The surgery did not go as planned. There was some hope that the
surgery would suffice to heal the plaintiff. Four days after the
surgery, when the plaintiff arrived to the hospital for x-rays, a
hospital staffer greeted him with a wheelchair. While navigating
the hospital an incident occurred in which the plaintiff's
extended left ankle made contact with a desk. The plaintiff
underwent a second surgery six days later.
The plaintiff then filed suit against the hospital and alleged that
the desk incident fractured his ankle and dislodged hardware that
had been placed during the first surgery. He identified two
experts: his previous pain management doctor and the surgeon who
operated on his left ankle. Neither doctor could provide an opinion
that the desk incident caused the plaintiff's injuries. The
Kentucky Supreme Court held that this was fatal to the
plaintiff's claims. While expert testimony would not be
required to establish the standard of care for a hospital staffer
pushing a wheelchair-bound patient, causation between the desk
incident and a complex injury had to be established by expert
testimony.
This case will serve as important authority for analyzing whether
sufficient evidence exists to prove all elements of a Kentucky
medical malpractice case to allow the case to be tried to a
jury.
Sanchez v. McMillin
(Mandating Strict Compliance with Affidavit of Merit Requirements)
On February 15, the Kentucky Supreme Court dealt a big win to
medical providers defending themselves in medical malpractice cases
in the case of Sanchez v. McMillin (2022-SC-0272-DG) by holding plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases
to a strict compliance standard with KRS 411.167, Kentucky's
Affidavit of Merit statute.
Kentucky enacted its Affidavit of Merit Statute in 2019, which
provided a list of requirements for Affidavits of Merit in a
medical malpractice case. From 2019 through 2024 it was an
unsettled area of Kentucky law whether strict compliance with the
statute was required or whether substantial compliance was
sufficient.
The plaintiff in Sanchez argued that even though he did
not provide a signed affidavit as set forth in the statute, he did
complete interrogatory responses indicating that a medical
professional had reviewed the case and opined that it had merit.
The Kentucky Supreme Court found this approach to compliance with
KRS 411.167 woefully lacking.
Ultimately, the Kentucky Supreme Court held strict compliance with
the statute is required. Now, if a plaintiff fails to strictly
comply with the Affidavit of Merit requirements, their only hope to
avoid dismissal with prejudice is to prove excusable neglect.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
