SMITH Et Al. v. BRASWELL Et Al.
342 Ga. App. 700
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- T’Miaya Smith sued midwife Lauren Braswell and her employer, alleging negligence during labor and delivery caused her son J.H.’s ischemic brain injuries (seizures after birth). Northside Hospital settled and is not on appeal.
- Smith proffered expert testimony from Dr. Barry Schifrin (maternal–fetal medicine) asserting a novel causation theory called cranial compression ischemic encephalopathy (CCIE): mechanical compressive forces in labor (e.g., oxytocin, excessive contractions, malposition, fundal pressure, pushing before full dilation) caused fetal ischemia.
- Braswell moved to exclude Dr. Schifrin’s testimony and all expert causation testimony and moved for summary judgment. The trial court excluded Dr. Schifrin’s testimony and any expert testimony adopting his mechanism, then granted summary judgment for Braswell.
- The trial court concluded CCIE lacked reliable support: it has not been reliably tested, lacks peer-reviewed literature and general acceptance, has no documented clinical diagnoses, and Smith’s other experts disclaimed opinions on the mechanical obstetric events central to the theory.
- On appeal Smith argued the court erred in excluding Schifrin and in granting summary judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the exclusion was not an abuse of discretion and that exclusion of the causation theory left Smith without essential expert proof for malpractice causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Schifrin’s expert testimony (CCIE theory) | Schifrin’s opinion should be admitted; label (CCIE) is not dispositive and other experts support causation | CCIE is unreliable under OCGA § 24-7-702(b)/Daubert factors: untested, not peer-reviewed, not generally accepted, no clinical diagnoses | Exclusion affirmed: trial court did not abuse its gatekeeping discretion; CCIE inadmissible |
| Summary judgment after exclusion of causation testimony | Additional experts preserve causation evidence; exclusion of Schifrin shouldn’t be fatal | With CCIE and related causation testimony excluded, plaintiff lacks required expert proof of proximate causation for malpractice | Summary judgment affirmed: essential element (causation) missing, so defendant entitled to judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- HNTB Ga., Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (discussing trial court gatekeeper role and flexible reliability factors for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (expert reliability test is flexible and applies beyond scientific testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (factors for assessing admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- Webster v. Desai, 305 Ga. App. 234 (affirming exclusion of expert testimony lacking peer-reviewed support in medical-malpractice case)