Beehler v. Eastern Radiological Associates, P.C.
2012 MT 260
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Katherine Beehler-Goodson died of bacterial meningitis (Group B Streptococcus) after a June 17, 2009 myelogram performed by Dr. Giuliano at SVH; infection traced to the spinal puncture.
- Plaintiffs Tony Beehler and Robert Goodson sued ERA, Dr. Giuliano, and SVH for infection-control negligence related to the myelogram and mask-wearing.
- The district court granted summary judgment, excluding Plaintiffs’ sole expert, Dr. Patrick Joseph, on standard of care, breach, and causation.
- District court held Dr. Joseph not qualified under § 26-2-601, MCA, because he was not a radiologist and had not performed a myelogram, and relied on CDC recommendations to establish care standards.
- On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding Dr. Joseph was qualified and admissible on standard of care and causation; summary judgment vacated.
- Deposition-cost award was deemed moot due to reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Joseph's testimony on standard of care was properly excluded | Beehler argues Joseph is qualified under § 26-2-601 and Rule 702 | Giuliano/SVH argue Joseph is not qualified (not a radiologist) and cannot testify on radiology standards | Exclusion was abuse; Joseph qualifies under § 26-2-601 and 702 |
| Whether Dr. Joseph's causation opinion was properly excluded | Joseph’s more-likely-than-not causation should suffice; infection likely from Dr. Giuliano’s mouth via unmasked procedure | Joseph’s causation opinion was speculative and not based on the required standard | Causation opinion admissible; not improper speculation |
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment | With Joseph admissible, genuine issues remain on standard of care and causation | Without a qualified expert, no negligence claim can survive | Summary judgment reversed and remanded |
| Whether the district court properly awarded deposition costs | Costs should be recoverable if judgment stands | Costs appropriate if prevailing party | Ruling moot on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Gratton v. Montana Deaconess Hosp., 169 Mont. 185, 545 P.2d 670 (Mont. 1976) (expert testimony essential in medical malpractice)
- Butler v. Domin, 2000 MT 312, 302 Mont. 452, 15 P.3d 1189 (Mont. 2000) (failure to establish 'more likely than not' causation fails)
- Dallas v. Burlington N. Inc., 212 Mont. 514, 689 P.2d 273 (Mont. 1984) (standard for expert testimony and admissibility)
- Harris v. Hanson, 2009 MT 13, 349 Mont. 29, 201 P.3d 151 (Mont. 2009) (three-part test for Rule 702 reliability)
- Ford v. Sentry Cas. Co., 2012 MT 156, 365 Mont. 405, 282 P.3d 687 (Mont. 2012) (interpretation of expert reliability; substance over semantics)