Torts: “Loss of Chance”: Claim Limited to Medical Malpractice

Webster's top two definitions of the word "drone" are as follows:

1: A stingless male bee (as of the honeybee) that has the role of mating with the queen and does not gather nectar or pollen.

2: one that lives on the labors of others: parasite

While bees and parasites have their allure, Webster's third definition of the word "drone" is the one with current intrigue.

According to Webster's, a drone is also "an unmanned aircraft or ship guided by remote control or onboard computers." Drones began as play things; but are now poised to revolutionize industry, retail, agriculture, journalism, art, and law at an ever-increasing pace.

Currently, drones are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration which has for decades regulated flight by planes and helicopters; but not everyone can own an airplane or helicopter. Everyone can own a drone and many soon will.

The soon-to-be pervasive use of drones will stretch at the fabric of criminal and civil law and raises intriguing questions with hazy answers. For example,

1: Without probable case, can the government park a drone over a house or building, or even a crime-ridden city block, and monitor for criminal activity with sensors that easily peer through walls?

2: Does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a fenced-in back yard?

3: Is following a personal injury plaintiff via drone considered stalking?

4: Can a business fly a drone over a competitor's work yard to observe it processes without recourse?

5: Is it legal to use technology (which is now available) to disrupt or even crash drones flying overhead? Would that be a tort?

In an upcoming Keogh Cox blog, we will advise of pending changes to the law that may begin to answer some of these questions. For now, we will observe that the word "drone" is no longer a boring word.

Ina recent case involving Keogh Cox attorneys, the Eastern District of Louisiana in MichaelBrander, Jr. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 18-982(Feb. 14, 2019), 2019 WL 636423 barred testimony of substantial projectedmedical expenses because it was not based on a reliable methodology. Thisruling stands to impact many other cases where plaintiffs seek to usefar-reaching projections of a life-long need for radiofrequency ablations("RFAs") or other pain-management modalities to "board" sixand even seven-figure numbers for future medical expenses.

InDaubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), theUnited States Supreme Court recognized the trial judge as the “gatekeeper” of expertopinion testimony and held that only reliable and relevant expert opinions maybe admitted. The reliability requirement serves to keep expert opinions“outside the gate” when they constitute unsupported speculation or meresubjective belief; only scientifically valid expert opinions are allowedinside. To ascertain whether an expert opinion is scientifically valid, Daubertinstructs the trial court to consider:

∙ whether theexpert’s theory can or has been tested;

∙ whether it hasbeen subject to peer review and publication;

∙ the known orpotential rate of error when applying the theory;

∙ applicablestandards and controls; and,

∙ the degree towhich the theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.

InBrander, the plaintiff advanced medical testimony that he would needRFAs every year of his expected lifetime, a period of 36 years. The courtdisallowed the testimony, noting that the plaintiff’s physicians had less thanten years personal experience in administering RFAs to patients, the medicalliterature only considered the effectiveness of RFAs over a span of seven toten years, and there was no showing that the 36-year treatment plan was ingeneral acceptance by the medical community. According to the court, theexpert opinions offered by plaintiff failed Daubert “on all points.” Asa result, the plaintiff was permitted to introduce testimony of future RFAs foronly a seven-year period.

The reasoning of Brander may be equally applicable to projections of lifetime treatment involving other medical procedures, such as medial branch blocks, Botox injections, or spinal cord stimulators, for which the long-term efficacy has not been firmly established in the medical literature. Opinions unsupported by personal treatment experience and peer-reviewed medical studies are not scientifically valid and are properly halted “at the gate.”

Nancy B. Gilbert is a partner with Keogh Cox in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She is a puzzle-solver by nature, and specializes in providing clear and in-depth analysis of complex litigation issues.

Defendants often request an AMO (“Additional Medical Opinion,” formerly called “IME”) under La. Code of Civil Procedure article 1464 which grants the courts power to order the examination of a plaintiff’s physical or mental condition when in controversy. Increasingly, plaintiff’s counsel will object outright to such examinations or seek to impose onerous restrictions designed to limit or prevent the examination. In Sistrunk v. Florida Marine, LLC, et al, 20-0771 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/28/20), 2020 WL 575645, the First Circuit rejected limitations sought by the plaintiff and imposed by the trial court.

In Sistrunk, the plaintiff alleged brain injury and psychological problems caused by a blow to the head. In view of the seriousness of the alleged injuries, the defense requested examinations by a neurologist, neuropsychologist, neurosurgeon, and psychiatrist. In response, the plaintiff agreed to examinations but only in areas plaintiff planned to offer medical testimony and under restrictions to include the presence of a third-party and audio or video recording. Although the trial court ordered the AMOs to move forward, it allowed the presence of a third-party who could then audio or videotape the exams. With respect to the neuropsychological examination, the trial court rejected observation by a third-party based upon industry standards which do not allow for such observation.

The defense in Sistrunk sought review from the First Circuit. Without comment, the First Circuit rejected the condition imposed by the trial court that the exams be captured through audio or videotaping. Sistrunk joins similar decisions such as Henry v. Barlow, 06-283 (La. App. 3 Cir. 8/9/06), 937 So. 2d. 895 which likewise prevented audio or videotaping of AMOs. In Henry, the court reasoned that the recording of an AMO would restrict the number of physicians willing to participate.

Brian has been doing defense work for the last 28 years. He has handled all types of defense matters over his career, but in recent years his practice has been focused in serious injury or damage cases and has worked extensively with experts involving complex cases, fire cases, and forensic work.