AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Plaintiff, Suzanne Burns, underwent surgery performed by the Defendants, Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Navjeet Kaur, M.D. Following the surgery, the Plaintiff experienced medical complications that she alleges were caused by the Defendants' negligence during the immediate post-operative period (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by striking an untimely affidavit from her expert on medical causation, which led to the dismissal of her case via summary judgment. Additionally, contended that even without the affidavit, the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees: Successfully moved for the striking of the Plaintiff’s expert affidavit due to its untimeliness and for summary judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to produce necessary expert testimony on medical causation as required by New Mexico case law (paras 1-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in striking the Plaintiff's untimely expert affidavit.
• Whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants despite the absence of the Plaintiff's expert affidavit.

Disposition

• The district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge J. Miles Hanisee authoring the decision, concurred by Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Megan P. Duffy, found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Plaintiff's untimely expert affidavit. The Court agreed that the affidavit violated the scheduling order and was inconsistent with the Plaintiff's initial expert disclosure and the expert's deposition testimony. The Court also noted that allowing the affidavit would have unduly prejudiced the Defendants. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Plaintiff did not suffer a sanction of dismissal due to the violation of the scheduling order but rather the exclusion of the untimely affidavit, which is considered a lesser sanction. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the district court applied the wrong standard in striking the affidavit (paras 2-3).
  Regarding the summary judgment, the Court agreed with the district court's determination that the Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence or testimony, apart from the stricken affidavit, that the Defendants' alleged negligence caused her harm. The Court emphasized that expert testimony is generally required to establish a causal connection in medical malpractice suits and found that none of Dr. Arnaout’s admissible testimony connected the Defendants' alleged negligence to the Plaintiff's injuries. The Court concluded that there was no error in the district court's decision that could warrant a reversal (paras 4-5).