Hemsley v. Langdon
299 Neb. 464
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Paul H. Hemsley underwent coronary artery bypass surgery performed by Dr. Thomas Langdon; a chest tube was placed during the procedure.
- Days later, fecal material and sepsis were discovered; a reoperation by Dr. John Batter revealed a transverse colon injury and abdominal contamination. Hemsley later died from respiratory failure due to peritonitis/sepsis.
- The Estate sued Langdon, Batter, and their practice for medical malpractice under the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act alleging negligence caused the injury and death.
- Before trial the Estate moved to exclude the defendants’ expert testimony, arguing the experts did not disclose methodologies or reasoning as required by Daubert/Schafersman; the district court overruled those motions.
- At trial defense experts testified that Langdon and Batter met the standard of care; a jury returned a defense verdict and the district court denied posttrial motions (new trial, JNOV, strike experts).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court fulfilled its gatekeeping duties and did not abuse its discretion admitting the experts’ standard-of-care opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abdicated its Daubert/Schafersman gatekeeping duty and should have excluded defendants’ expert standard-of-care testimony | Estate: experts failed to disclose methodologies/reasoning; testimony should be excluded under Daubert/Schafersman | Doctors: testimony was empirical, experience-based standard-of-care opinion and not subject to the full Daubert complexity asserted by Estate; trial court properly admitted it | Court: trial court performed gatekeeping on the record; Daubert factors are flexible and may not be dispositive for experience-based standard-of-care testimony; no abdication |
| Whether defendants’ experts met admissibility under Daubert/Schafersman (reliability/applicability) | Estate: experts’ opinions lacked disclosed methods and supporting data so were unreliable | Doctors: experts’ education, training, experience and personal knowledge supported opinions and Estate did not sufficiently attack reliability | Court: experts’ testimony was relevant, based on qualifications and personal knowledge; District Court reasonably exercised discretion to admit the testimony |
| Whether admission of the expert testimony prejudiced the Estate warranting new trial or JNOV | Estate: erroneous admission was prejudicial and necessitates new trial or JNOV | Doctors: no abuse of discretion in admission; verdict supported by evidence | Court: because admission was proper, posttrial motions were properly denied |
| Scope of Daubert/Schafersman for medical standard-of-care testimony: whether courts must apply full Daubert checklist to customary-practice opinions | Estate: urges stricter Daubert-style scrutiny of standard-of-care testimony | Doctors: standard-of-care testimony statutory and often empirical; Daubert factors may be inapplicable or flexible | Court: Daubert/Schafersman applies but flexibly; trial courts should not displace statutory customary-practice standard; factors may or may not be pertinent |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (trial-court gatekeeping standard for expert scientific testimony)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (Nebraska adoption of Daubert framework)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (gatekeeping duty applies to technical/experience-based experts; Daubert factors are flexible)
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility rulings)
- Zimmerman v. Powell, 268 Neb. 422 (trial court must make specific record findings when exercising gatekeeping duties)
- Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 (Daubert factors applied to medical standard-of-care testimony)
- Murray v. UNMC Physicians, 282 Neb. 260 (statutory standard-of-care cannot be altered by courts on policy grounds)