Hagen v. Strobel, 353 P.3d 799

Background

Gregory Hagen underwent pacemaker implantation by cardiologist Dr. Gunnar Strobel; a follow-up chest x‑ray was taken the next day to assess lead placement and complications.
A radiologist’s report noted a possible 1 cm right upper‑lobe nodule and recommended follow‑up chest views when the patient’s condition permitted; that recommendation was not communicated to Hagen.
Dr. Alan Skolnick, another cardiologist, reviewed the x‑ray for pacemaker complications and dictated a discharge note; Hagen was discharged and later died of lung cancer about two years afterward.
The Estate (Shirley Hagen, personal representative) sued the two cardiologists for medical negligence, alleging their failure to relay the radiology follow‑up caused a lost chance of survival.
The superior court ordered expert disclosures; the Estate did not produce a board‑certified cardiology expert and was precluded from adding one. The cardiologists moved for summary judgment supported by Dr. Strobel’s affidavit asserting compliance with the standard of care.
The superior court granted summary judgment for the cardiologists on the ground that a board‑certified cardiologist’s expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care and the Estate failed to submit such an expert. The Estate’s motions for reconsideration and to amend were not granted on the merits and several arguments were deemed waived on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony from a board‑certified cardiologist was required to establish the standard of care	Estate: factual dispute about whether Strobel received the radiology report makes expert testimony unnecessary or creates material issue	Cardiologists: medical issues are beyond lay comprehension; AS 09.20.185(a) requires a board‑certified expert in the defendant's specialty to opine on standard of care	Held: Expert testimony by a board‑certified cardiologist was required; Estate produced none, so summary judgment proper
Whether an inconsistency about delivery/receipt of the radiology report created a material fact precluding summary judgment	Estate: admission that report was "provided" vs. Strobel’s deposition that he never received it creates a factual dispute	Cardiologists: record shows report was sent/scanned to Alaska Heart Institute; Strobel’s testimony does not contradict that it was sent and the fact of transmission is not material to the expert‑testimony requirement	Held: No material inconsistency; even if Strobel hadn’t received it, Estate identified no cardiology expert tying that fact to breach, so not material
Whether the superior court erred in denying reconsideration	Estate: court overlooked material facts (the receipt dispute) warranting reconsideration	Cardiologists: no new admissible evidence shown that would affect summary judgment	Held: Argument waived on appeal for cursory briefing; no reversible error identified
Whether leave to amend to add Alaska Heart Institute should have been granted	Estate: alleged failure to deliver the report made Alaska Heart Institute a potentially responsible party and warranted amendment	Cardiologists: Rule 26 compliance and prejudice issues; court has discretion on amendments	Held: Argument waived on appeal for inadequate briefing; trial court’s ruling on amendment not reversed

Key Cases Cited

Trombley v. Starr‑Wood Cardiac Group, PC, 3 P.3d 916 (Alaska 2000) (expert testimony ordinarily required for breach of professional duty in medical malpractice)
Achman v. State, 323 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2014) (plaintiff bears burden to prove standard of care in medical negligence)
Kelly v. Municipality of Anchorage, 270 P.3d 801 (Alaska 2012) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
Glover v. Ranney, 314 P.3d 535 (Alaska 2013) (issues given cursory treatment in briefing are waived on appeal)
Sonneman v. State, 969 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1998) (a factual dispute only precludes summary judgment if it is material)