 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Broehm v. Rochester3/11/2003
Appellant Amy Marie Broehm challenges the dismissal of her medical-malpractice claim against respondent Mayo Clinic, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by (1) concluding that she failed to comply with the expert-disclosure requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682 (2002) and (2) denying her motion to extend the deadline for expert disclosure. Respondent moved to strike certain submissions from appellant on the ground that they were outside the record. Because we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion and that the submission was not part of the record on appeal, we affirm and grant respondent's motion.
FACTS
In December 1999, Peter Pairolero, M.D., a thoracic surgeon at respondent Mayo Clinic, performed tracheal-resection surgery on appellant Amy Marie Broehm. The surgery involved removing a 1.5-inch narrowed section of appellant's trachea and suturing the two ends together. Following this procedure, a patient's head must be completely immobilized for up to three days to maintain the integrity of the sutures and prevent lethal tracheal separation. To ensure head immobility, Dr. Pairolero and his assistant have designed a restraint consisting of a towel secured to the patient's forehead with two-inch adhesive tape that is then tightly fastened to either side of the bed in which the patient is lying. Dr. Pairolero has constructed or supervised the construction of dozens of such restraints over nearly 30 years of performing tracheal resections. Here, immediately following a successful surgery, Dr. Pairolero had his physician's assistant construct and apply appellant's restraint and gave instructions that the nursing staff was not to touch the restraint. When Dr. Pairolero removed the restraint three days after surgery, he observed an injury measuring approximately 4 inches by.5 inches to appellant's forehead. The injury became a permanent scar.
Appellant brought a medical-malpractice claim in July 2001, alleging negligence in respondent's construction and application of the head restraint. As required by Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subds. 2, 3 (2002), the claim was accompanied by an affidavit stating that an expert qualified to testify at trial had reviewed the claim and believed that respondent's negligence had caused appellant's injury . Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 4(a) (2002), required that within 180 days after filing the claim, appellant serve respondent with a disclosure specifying which experts would testify at trial on her behalf, the substance of their testimony, and a summary of the grounds for their opinions. The 180-day deadline was January 28, 2002.
Appellant timely submitted an affidavit disclosing the opinion of Linda Wick, a certified geriatric nurse practitioner specializing in nephrology. Wick stated that respondent owed appellant, and breached, various duties related to the construction, use, and inspection of the head restraint. Three days before the 180-day deadline, appellant moved to extend the deadline, arguing that she needed to conduct further discovery concerning the head restraint and obtain additional expert opinions concerning the cause of her injury .
After the deadline passed, respondent moved for statutory dismissal on the ground that Wick, appellant's proffered expert, was not qualified to testify about the standard of care owed by appellant's surgeon. See Minn. Stat. § 145.682, subd. 6(c) (2002) (mandating dismissal of medical-malpractice claims with prejudice for failure to comply with the expert-disclosure requirements of section 145.682).
While both motions were pending, appellant filed a "supplemental memorandum" with the district court, arguing that no expert testi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|