This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The personal representative of the estate of the deceased brought medical malpractice claims against a healthcare provider and a doctor, alleging wrongful death and lost chance. The claims were based on the alleged failure of the doctor to perform necessary cardiac tests, which purportedly could have improved the surgical outcome for the deceased (paras 1 and 5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The court excluded the plaintiff's sole expert witness and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in excluding the expert witness's testimony and that the expert had testified to causation for the wrongful death claim (paras 3-4).
- Defendants-Appellees: Argued that the expert's testimony was contradictory, not credible, and failed to establish causation, justifying the exclusion of the testimony and the grant of summary judgment (para 1).
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in excluding the plaintiff's expert witness's testimony.
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment due to lack of evidence of causation and damages.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants (para 6).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Hanisee and Baca JJ. concurring):
The court found that the district court provided two alternative rationales for granting summary judgment: the inadmissibility of the expert's testimony and the insufficiency of the testimony to establish causation, even if admissible. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate error in both rationales, focusing primarily on the admissibility issue and not adequately addressing the causation issue. The court concluded that the expert's testimony did not establish that the alleged negligence was more likely than not the proximate cause of death, affirming the district court's decision (paras 3-5).