In the recent case of Jabbi v. Adventist Healthcare, the Maryland Appellate Court addressed critical issues concerning the admissibility of expert testimony in medical malpractice lawsuits. This decision provides valuable insights into how courts evaluate the foundation of expert opinions, particularly when these opinions are based on the expert’s professional experience and relevant scientific literature.
Case Overview
The plaintiffs, Fatou Jabbi and Lamin Kanteh, acting individually and on behalf of their minor child, T.R., filed a medical malpractice suit against Adventist Healthcare, Inc., and two healthcare providers, Tamara Pottillo and Lisa Godette. The case arose from events on January 16, 2018, when Ms. Jabbi, who was 24 weeks and 5 days pregnant, sought medical attention at Washington Adventist Healthcare due to back and abdominal pain. Nurse Pottillo recorded her vital signs, which were reviewed by Dr. Godette. Concluding that the vitals were within normal limits, Dr. Godette discharged Ms. Jabbi with a prescription for Tylenol, without conducting a urine test for preeclampsia.
Approximately fourteen hours later, Ms. Jabbi visited a different hospital, where she was diagnosed with preeclampsia and received a dose of Betamethasone—a steroid aimed at accelerating fetal lung development in anticipation of preterm delivery. Her condition worsened, necessitating an emergency cesarean section before the administration of a second Betamethasone dose. T.R. was born with severe complications associated with prematurity.