Meade v. Dvorak
571 S.W.3d 585
Ky. Ct. App.2018Background
- Meade sued Dr. John Dvorak and Colorectal Surgical and Gastroenterology Associates for negligence arising from a colorectal resection that allegedly required subsequent surgery for complications.
- Scheduling order required CR 26.02 expert disclosures within 60 days; Meade missed the deadline, moved for extension, and later identified Dr. Scott Russell Steele as an expert after the extended date.
- Meade disclosed only Dr. Steele’s anticipated opinions before Dr. Steele had reviewed Meade’s medical records or formed an opinion; no written or oral expert opinion from Dr. Steele existed before the court’s order.
- Defendants moved to strike Dr. Steele under CR 26.02 and renewed for summary judgment; the circuit court granted both motions and struck the expert, then entered summary judgment for defendants.
- Meade appealed, arguing (1) CR 26.02 requires only subject matter and summary of grounds (not a formed opinion) and (2) the negligence was so obvious that lay evidence sufficed (the rare no-expert-needed exception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CR 26.02 required disclosure of an expert’s formed opinion before listing the expert | Meade: Disclosure of subject matter and grounds sufficed; he expected Steele to testify, so CR 26.02 was satisfied | Defendants: Rule requires disclosure of facts known and opinions already formed by the expert; listing an expert before opinion formation violates the rule | Court: CR 26.02 requires facts known and opinions held; disclosure made before expert formed opinion did not comply and expert was properly struck |
| Whether striking the expert justified summary judgment | Meade: Even without expert, negligence was obvious to laypersons; lay testimony (e.g., Tambara Nalle) showed malpractice | Defendants: Without admissible expert testimony, Meade cannot establish standard of care or breach in a medical negligence case | Court: No lay-evidence sufficient; negligence was not so apparent to dispense with expert testimony; summary judgment for defendants proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Clephas v. Garlock, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 389 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004) (expert disclosure that predates expert’s ability to form opinion fails to meet discovery rules)
- Morris v. Hoffman, 551 S.W.2d 8 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977) (expert medical opinions must be based on reasonable medical probability, not speculation)
- Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676 (Ky. 2005) (exception where professional negligence is so apparent that a layperson can recognize it)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (standard for granting summary judgment; view record in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)