ILNews

Baeverstad: Does M.D. allow expert to rely on junk science?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-baeverstadA patient comes to the hospital and receives twice the amount of thrombolytics ordered by the cardiologist. The thrombolytics have a risk of causing hemorrhagic stroke. Two days later, the patient strokes and dies. The treating cardiologist is of the opinion that the stroke was caused by the excessive dose given to the patient. Does this seem like a “no brainer” on causation?

But what if a peer-reviewed case control study found no statistical difference in the risk of stroke between the amount ordered by the cardiologist and the amount mistakenly given to the patient? What if this same scientific study changed the practice of medicine to the extent that patients now receive the dose of thrombolytics mistakenly given to the patient? In that situation, can the cardiologist’s opinion on causation past muster under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Indiana Rules of Evidence?

It was this precise issue that was addressed in the case of Akey v. Parkview Hospital, 941 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied, 2011 Ind. LEXIS 522. There, in response to 89-year-old Akey’s heart attack, the cardiologist told the emergency physician to give Akey one-half dose of the thrombolytic, TNKase, and one-half dose of ReoPro. Due to a communication breakdown between the emergency department physician and the nurses, Akey received the one-half dose of TNKase but also received, instead of ReoPro, a one-half dose of another thrombolytic, Retavase. Two days later, Akey stroked and died.

Several years later, a peer-reviewed case control study (GUSTO-V) compared the risk of stroke in patients who received a one-half dose of a thrombolytic along with ReoPro to the risk of stroke in patients who received a full dose of a thrombolytic without ReoPro. The study found that, in patients over 75 years of age, the risk of an intracranial bleed was statistically insignificant. Based upon that study, cardiologists abandoned the practice of giving patients a one-half dose of a thrombolytic with ReoPro and began giving patients full doses of a thrombolytic with no ReoPro.

Despite the treating cardiologist acknowledging the authority of the GUSTO-V study and that it changed the way he practices cardiology, he held fast to his opinion that the dosing error caused Akey’s stroke. He could not cite to any study that supported his opinion.

Rule 702 (b) of the Indiana rule of Evidence reads: Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable.

This is commonly known as the “gatekeeper” provision in which the trial court is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that expert opinion testimony that is based upon junk science is excluded. Based upon the Akey decision, one must question whether this rule applies at all to the opinions of licensed physicians. One cannot think of a situation where the opinions of an expert physician are more directly refuted by a reliable scientific study, yet the trial court was reversed in its determination that the opinions failed the requirements of Rule 702(b).

One would think that the standard of review for a judge’s role as gatekeeper under Rule 702(b) would be the same regardless of when the issue is raised. In Akey, this issue was raised in a motion for summary judgment. Given the extreme difficulty defending summary judgment on appeal, defense counsel may opt to raise this issue in a motion in limine where the standard of review is an abuse of discretion.•

__________

Mark Baeverstad
is a partner in Rothberg Logan & Warsco and is a member of the DTCI Board of Directors. Baeverstad represents Parkview Hospital in Akey v. Parkview Hospital. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT