Diane Pradat Pumphrey and Carl Hagwood obtained a defense verdict in a medical malpractice case as a result of a Daubert Motion to exclude the standard of care and causation opinions of the Plaintiff’s experts.
At trial, the Trial Court sustained the Daubert Motion and excluded the testimony of the Plaintiff’s standard of care and causation experts. The Physician Defendant then moved for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacked competent testimony on duty, breach and causation. The Trial Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Defendant was a cardiologist who was accused of breaching the standard of care by not specifically warning his former patient of the risk of optic neuropathy as a result of taking Amiodarone to control the patient’s atrial fibrillation. The PDR references possible optic neuropathy but states that there is no proven direct cause and effect relationship. The Defendant relied on the only peer reviewed article on this subject which concludes that there is no direct causal relationship between Amiodarone and optic neuropathy.