Benkendorf v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered
269 P.3d 704
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- Benkendorf sued Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered (ACSC) for medical malpractice related to Judy Benkendorf's death after Coumadin management.
- Judy underwent Jan 2003 kidney surgery, developed a pulmonary embolism, was placed on Coumadin, and died after an intracranial hemorrhage in June 2003.
- Plaintiff alleged negligent monitoring/adjustment of Coumadin; defense argued no negligence and that Coumadin did not cause the hemorrhage.
- Before trial, Benkendorf moved to preclude Dr. Kurt Schroeder's causation testimony, arguing it was limited to probability, not possibility.
- The trial court denied the motion; at trial Schroeder testified to possible causes; ACSC introduced Schroeder's deposition to rebut causation.
- The jury returned a verdict for ACSC; judgment entered; Benkendorf timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May defense causation expert testify about possible causes? | Benkendorf argues testimony on possibility is inadmissible. | ACSC relies on Wilder and similar authorities allowing possible-causes testimony. | No abuse; defense may present possible causes to rebut plaintiff’s causation. |
| Does Wilder permit defense testimony about possible causation without proving probability? | Burden lies with plaintiff; defense cannot rely on mere possibilities. | Defense may offer possible causes to undermine plaintiff’s theory; no burden-shift. | Defense may testify to possible causes; probability proof not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilder v. Eberhart, 977 F.2d 673 (1st Cir.1992) (burden remains with plaintiff; defense may rebut with possible causes)
- Baroldy v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 157 Ariz. 574 (App.1988) (expert testimony admissibility; broad discretion of trial court)
- Crackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 208 Ariz. 252 (App.2004) (abuse of discretion standard for admission of evidence)
- Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470 (2000) (evidence must be relevant and helpful to jury; admissibility standards apply)
- Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of Am., Inc., 163 Ariz. 539 (1990) (causation must be proven by probable, not merely possible, evidence)