Gaines v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs.
Background
- Plaintiff, Judith Gaines, as personal representative, brought medical malpractice and wrongful death claims on behalf of the estate of John Gaines against Daniel B. Friedman, M.D., and Presbyterian Healthcare Services.
- The alleged malpractice involved failure to order and perform cardiac tests, which purportedly led to fatal surgical complications.
- Plaintiff's sole expert, Dr. Steven Fisher, was excluded by the district court for offering contradictory and insufficiently supported testimony, particularly concerning causation.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants after excluding the expert, reasoning there was no admissible expert evidence linking defendant’s actions with the alleged harm.
- Plaintiff appealed, contesting the exclusion of her expert and the subsequent summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Expert Testimony | Court wrongly acted as fact-finder, not gatekeeper | Testimony was contradictory, not credible, didn’t prove causation | Affirmed exclusion; court properly exercised discretion |
| Sufficiency of Causation Evidence | Dr. Fisher stated causal link between negligence and death | No genuine evidence Dr. Friedman's negligence caused the death | No evidence of causation; summary judgment appropriate |
| Basis for Summary Judgment | Lack of expert was the only reason for judgment | Alternative reason: even with expert, testimony failed on causation | Summary judgment correct for both stated reasons |
| Lost Chance Claim | (No argument made on appeal) | No causation proven, so claim fails | Court presumed correctness; claim not properly appealed |
Key Cases Cited
- Acosta v. Shell W. Expl. & Prod., Inc., 370 P.3d 761 (N.M. 2016) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Carrillo v. My Way Holdings, LLC, 389 P.3d 1087 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for summary judgment when no genuine issue of fact)
- Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 800 P.2d 1063 (N.M. 1990) (appellant's burden to show error and relevant presumption in favor of trial court)
- Schmidt v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 736 P.2d 135 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (requirement for expert testimony to prove causation in medical malpractice)
- Lopez v. Sw. Cmty. Health Servs., 833 P.2d 1183 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (similar requirement for causation in medical malpractice)
- Morris v. Merchant, 423 P.2d 606 (N.M. 1967) (court corrects only reversible errors)