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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT