Samaan v. St. Joseph Hospital
670 F.3d 21
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Egyptian-American plaintiff Samaan suffered a stroke; hospital care in Bangor, Maine, reportedly did not administer t-PA within window and later required multiple rehabilitative steps.
- Plaintiff sued St. Joseph Hospital and Dr. Kaplan in Maine state court; case removed to federal court based on diversity; hospital did not sign removal papers.
- District court held causation standard under Maine law as 'more likely than not' and rejected 'lost chance' doctrine; Tikoo causation testimony was excluded.
- District court later denied defendants’ summary judgment motions; court excluded new causation experts Walsh and Hussein for failure to designate as causation experts.
- Plaintiff appealing on remand, causation standard, expert admissibility, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim; appellees seek affirmation of dismissal.
- The First Circuit ultimately affirms the district court’s judgment, upholding the exclusion of Tikoo and the dismissal of NIED claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand waiver and unanimity | Waiver of removal defects not properly objected to. | Unanimity and in-forum removal issues should bar federal jurisdiction. | Waiver and non-significant unanimity issues resolved against remand; denial affirmed. |
| Causation standard under Maine law | Lost chance doctrine should apply; Maine may recognize it. | MHSA requires 'reasonable medical probability'—more likely than not; no lost chance. | Maine uses 'more likely than not' standard; lost chance rejected. |
| Daubert admissibility of Tikoo testimony | Tikoo's methods are valid and reliable; should be admitted. | Tikoo's analyses misalign with causation question; lacks adequate fit. | Tikoo testimony excluded; does not meet Daubert reliability and fit. |
| Sanctions and exclusion of Walsh/Hussein as causation experts | Designation timing was permissible; sanctions too severe. | Failure to designate causation experts; sanctions warranted. | District court did not abuse discretion; exclusion upheld. |
| NIED claim viability | Emotional distress damages should survive with proper causation. | NIED is subsumed under MHSA; causation essential and not shown. | NIED claim cannot survive absent causation; affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Eastern Maine Medical Center, 565 A.2d 306 (Me. 1989) (discusses 'more likely than not' vs 'lost chance' in causation)
- Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2009) (unanimity not strictly required; timely non-signing opposition suffices)
- Farm Construction Services, Inc. v. Fudge, 831 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1987) (waiver of removal defect where jurisdictional prerequisites later satisfied)
- Grubbs v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699 (U.S. 1972) (whether removal defects are jurisdictional or waivable)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping role for admissibility of scientific evidence)
- Merriam v. Wanger, 757 A.2d 778 (Me. 2000) (requires more likely than not causation in medical malpractice)