Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Faure v. Las Cruces Medical Center, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

August 22, 2017

JOHN FAURE, as Personal Representative for the Wrongful Death Estate of GLORIA QUIMBEY, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
LAS CRUCES MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, doing business as Mountain View Regional Medical Center, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC., ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and RONALD LALONDE, Defendants, and LAS CRUCES MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, Cross Claimant,
v.
ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC., Cross Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

         This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Las Cruces Medical Center, LLC, d/b/a Mountain [V]iew Regional Medical Center's (“Defendant MVRMC”) Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Testifying Experts John Stein, M.D., and Fred Hyde (“Motion to Exclude”), filed on February 27, 2017. (Doc. 342). Plaintiff filed a response on March 22, 2017, and Defendant MVRMC filed a reply on April 19, 2017. (Docs. 359, 375). Having reviewed the Motion to Exclude, the accompanying briefs, and exhibits, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Exclude.

         I. Background

         This is a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the death of Gloria Quimbey (“Ms. Quimbey”). Defendant MVRMC moves to exclude certain opinion evidence by Dr. John Stein (“Dr. Stein”) and Mr. Fred Hyde (“Mr. Hyde”).

         A. Dr. Stein's Expert Report

         Plaintiff intends to introduce the testimony of Dr. Stein to discuss the administration of tPA, a medication designed to dissolve blood clots, to Ms. Quimbey. (Doc. 342) at 3; (Doc. 342-14) at 3. In his expert report, Dr. Stein lists the evidence he considered in formulating his expert opinion. He then describes the chronology of events from the time Ms. Quimbey entered the MVRMC emergency room (“ER”) on December 11, 2012, to her death on December 12, 2012. (Doc. 342-14) at 2-3. Dr. Stein discusses the administration of tPA in general and the use of tPA in this case. Id. at 3-4. Finally, Dr. Stein states his conclusions. Id. at 4. With regard to Defendant MVRMC, Dr. Stein states that MVRMC's stroke protocol, “including tPA preparation was appropriate.” Id. at 3. However, the administration of tPA to Ms. Quimbey by travelling nurse Ronald Lalonde (“Mr. Lalonde”) in the telemetry unit of MVRMC “represented a catastrophic system failure on the part of the hospital.” Id. Dr. Stein notes that “while the hospital had an adequate tPA protocol, it was not followed. The hospital failed to ensure that [Mr. Lalonde] was aware of the protocol [for administering tPA, ] and had been trained in the protocol.” Id. at 4.

         B. Mr. Hyde's Expert Report

         Plaintiff intends to introduce his second expert, Mr. Hyde, to discuss hospital management. (Doc. 342-15). Mr. Hyde's expert report gives opinions about Defendant MVRMC's standard of care regarding (1) information management; (2) leadership; (3) contractual agreements; (4) patient flow; (5) medication management; (6) nursing; and (7) communication of accurate medication information. Id. at 1-5. Mr. Hyde found that Defendant MVRMC fell below the standard of care in “information management; leadership; oversight of care, treatment and services provided through contractual agreement; medication management; nursing organization; and also National Patient Safety Goals.” Id. In sum, Mr. Hyde argues “errors and failures in each of these areas may have been fatal, but, taken together . . . illustrate a systemic shortcoming by [Defendant MVRMC], suggesting indifference to quality assurance and quality improvement and the resulting safety of its patients.” Id. at 6 (emphasis in original omitted).

         II. Expert Testimony Standard

         Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony and provides that, [a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.