Maryland Accident Law Blog
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.
Expert Testimony and Circuit Court Ruling
The plaintiffs engaged medical experts who asserted that, had Washington Adventist Healthcare followed the standard of care, it would have been possible to prolong the pregnancy sufficiently to complete the full Betamethasone course, thereby reducing the severity of T.R.’s injuries. These expert opinions were grounded in both the practitioners’ clinical experience and supporting scientific literature.
The defendants sought to exclude this expert testimony and filed for summary judgment. The Circuit Court granted these motions, reasoning that the experts relied on their “education and experience without specifying how that education and experience actually supports” their conclusions. The court determined that the opinions lacked support from scientific literature or case-specific facts.
Appellate Court Decision
Upon review, the Maryland Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court scrutinized the “sufficient factual basis” requirement under Maryland Rule 5-702 for admitting expert testimony. It found that the plaintiffs’ experts had based their opinions on a combination of medical experience and pertinent scientific literature, thus satisfying the rule’s criteria. The court concluded that the Circuit Court had abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony.
The appellate court also referenced federal precedents, emphasizing that in the context of Rule 5-702 and the Daubert-Rochkind standard, a medical expert’s experience is a valid component of their testimony. This acknowledgment reflects the understanding that the complexities of the human body often preclude the feasibility of double-blind studies, necessitating reliance on clinical experience and judgment in medical decision-making.
Implications for Medical Malpractice Cases
The Jabbi decision underscores the judiciary’s recognition of the integral role that both professional experience and scientific literature play in forming expert medical opinions. It serves as a reminder that courts should not dismiss expert testimony solely because it incorporates experiential knowledge, particularly in fields where empirical studies may be limited or nonexistent.
This ruling may influence how future medical malpractice cases assess and admit expert testimony. It reinforces the idea that testimony based on a combination of experience and literature can meet the admissibility threshold and should be considered by a jury rather than dismissed pre-trial. For injury victims and their legal counsel, the decision opens the door to more comprehensive presentations of medical causation and standard-of-care violations.
What This Means for Injury Victims
If you or a loved one has suffered harm due to a healthcare provider’s actions, the quality and admissibility of expert testimony can determine whether your case moves forward. Courts now acknowledge that medical experts do not always rely on randomized studies or statistics; years of clinical experience and sound judgment can be just as important in building a strong case.
Don’t let legal technicalities keep your case from being heard. If you’ve been harmed by negligent medical care, speak to an attorney who understands how to build a case with strong, credible expert support.
Talk to an Experienced Maryland Medical Malpractice Lawyer
At Lebowitz & Mzhen, we understand how daunting it can be to pursue justice after a medical injury—especially when your child is the one affected. Our Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys are skilled in presenting well-supported expert testimony and holding healthcare providers accountable when they fail to uphold the standard of care.
To speak with a member of our team, call us at (800) 654-1949 for a free consultation. We proudly serve clients throughout Maryland, including Prince George’s County, and we’re here to help you seek the compensation you and your family deserve.