751 F.3d 947
8th Cir.2014Background
- Dawn Lawrey gave birth to Aubree, who sustained a permanent brachial plexus injury from shoulder dystocia during a posterior encounter (before head crowned).
- Lawrey alleged Dr. Murray negligently treated Aubree and failed to warn of a possible permanent injury during a vaginal delivery.
- Dr. Murray discussed the risk of injury during prenatal care but did not warn about potential permanent injury; Lawrey chose vaginal delivery.
- Two expert witnesses attributed Aubree’s injury to excessive physician-applied traction; they further asserted maternal forces cannot cause permanent brachial plexus injuries.
- The district court granted a motion in limine excluding those experts’ opinions on traction and res ipsa, focusing the case on informed consent.
- At trial, the jury found in favor of Murray on the informed-consent issue; Lawrey challenged the ruling and sought judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the in limine ruling was an abuse of discretion | Lawrey argues exclusion of causal testimony denied essential differential diagnosis. | Murray contends exclusion aligned with Daubert and facts of the case. | No abuse of discretion; testimony did not fit case facts. |
| Whether lack of informed consent exists as a matter of law | Lawrey contends Murray admitted no warning required, establishing lack of informed consent. | Murray's expert framed warning duty per ACOG risk factors; none of those factors applied. | No judgment as a matter of law; risk factors not present, thus no per se duty established. |
| Whether closing-argument errors warranted a new trial | Lawrey asserts prejudicial and inflammatory statements unfairly influenced the jury. | Murray contends comments were either proper or not prejudicial; district court instructed jurors on evidence. | No plain error; comments did not warrant a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sappington v. Skyjack, Inc., 512 F.3d 440 (8th Cir.2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for expert testimony admissibility)
- Hy-Vee Food Stores, Inc. v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 622 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.2010) (offer of proof and motion-in-limine standards post-2000 amendment to Rule 103)
- Shelton v. Kennedy Funding, Inc., 622 F.3d 943 (8th Cir.2010) (pretrial motion in limine preserved error without trial offer of proof)
- United States v. Davis, 534 F.3d 903 (8th Cir.2008) (pretrial rulings and evidentiary objections preserved without offer of proof)
- Nebraska Plastics, Inc. v. Holland Colors Americas, Inc., 408 F.3d 410 (8th Cir.2005) (expert opinion must fit specific facts of the case)
- Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 207 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir.2000) (fit of expert opinion to facts; admissibility under Daubert factors)
- Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir.2002) (en banc consideration on offer-of-proof after trial; pre- Hy-Vee alignment)
- WWP, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Family Support, Inc., 628 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir.2011) (follow-on authorities applying previous line of decisions)