WINHAM v. REESE
2017 OK CIV APP 18
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- In 2011 Billie Winham underwent an ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy performed by gastroenterologist Dr. Thomas Schiller; complications followed, including possible duodenal perforation and subsequent surgeries.
- Winham experienced multiple readmissions, confusion, agitation, abdominal abscesses, malnutrition, and was later moved to a skilled nursing facility; Dr. Joe Reese provided portions of her post-operative care.
- Winham sued Drs. Schiller and Reese for medical negligence, intending to offer Dr. Bernard Jaffe as her medical expert.
- Dr. Jaffe is a retired general surgeon experienced in open surgery and postoperative care but has never performed ERCP or endoscopic sphincterotomy.
- Defendants moved to exclude or limit Dr. Jaffe’s testimony and later for summary judgment; the trial court limited Jaffe to testifying about a general physician standard and excluded specialist-level opinions, then granted summary judgment for the defendants.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding Jaffe was unqualified to opine on the specialist surgical standard and his causation opinions regarding Dr. Reese were unreliable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Jaffe was qualified to testify as to breach of specialist standard of care for ERCP/sphincterotomy | Jaffe’s surgical background and experience generally qualify him to opine on surgical negligence | Jaffe lacks training/experience with endoscopic procedures (ERCP/sphincterotomy); therefore not qualified under Daubert/Christian | Court: Not qualified — Jaffe’s open-surgery background insufficient to establish reliable opinion about this specialized endoscopic procedure |
| Whether Jaffe’s testimony established causation for alleged negligence by Dr. Reese in post-op care | Jaffe criticized Reese’s diagnostic/treatment choices (e.g., timing of EEG, ordering carotid Doppler) and tied those to negligence causing mental deterioration | Jaffe’s opinions do not reliably link Reese’s actions to Winham’s mental decline; Jaffe conceded recommended tests wouldn’t have changed outcome | Court: Held causation not established — Jaffe’s methodology and conclusions on causation were unreliable and insufficient for a jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Christian v. Gray, 65 P.3d 591 (Okla. 2003) (adopted Daubert/Kumho framework for admissibility of expert testimony in Oklahoma and set qualification/reliability inquiry)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial courts must ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, not just scientific)
- Lounds v. State ex rel. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 255 P.3d 460 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (expert with relevant practice experience permitted to testify about nursing-home care standard)