 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hackman v. Christiana Care Health Services11/15/2004
that appear?
A: Extremely easy to notice.
In sum, the evidence relating to the initial surgery, and the manner in which Schickler performed that surgery, was consistent. The aneurysm repair was a very difficult procedure that required manipulation of the duodenum. During that surgery, Schickler may have nicked or bruised the duodenum. At some point during the five days following the surgery, the duodenum perforated. Although it would have been a breach of the applicable standard of care if Schickler had punctured the duodenum during the surgery, there are no facts suggesting that the perforation occurred at that time.
Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the Superior Court acted within its discretion in excluding Novin's standard of care opinion relating to the surgery. Since there was no factual support for the predicate assumption -- that Schickler punctured the duodenum during the surgery -- Novin's opinion lacked probative value and, if admitted, could have confused the jury. The same lack of evidence required the entry of judgment in Schickler's favor, as there was no medical expert testimony from which a jury could find that he breached the applicable standard of care.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|