Michael Larrison and Elizabeth Larrison v. Johanna Schubert, M.D.

Omaha, Nebraska personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued on a medical malpractice theory.







Michael Larrison and Elizabeth Larrison brought a claim for medical malpractice and loss of consortium against Johanna Schubert, M.D., a radiologist involved in Michael's medical care. Before trial, the district court ruled that two of the Larrisons' medical experts could not testify to the standard of care for radiologists but could testify for purposes of causation of Michael's injuries. The Larrisons had a third medical expert who was permitted to testify to the standard of care. The jury ultimately found that the Larrisons failed to meet their burden of proof and returned a verdict for Schubert. On appeal, the Larrisons argue that the district court erred by excluding portions of their medical experts' testimony.



* * *



On November 28, 2019, Michael was transported by ambulance to Bergan Mercy Hospital in Omaha for severe pain in his lower back and stomach. Michael had a history of pulmonary embolisms-blockages of arteries in the lungs-and deep vein thrombosis. He was admitted to the emergency department and underwent several tests. Medical staff captured several computed tomography angiograms (CT scans) to determine the cause of Michael's symptoms. Schubert, a board-certified radiologist who was working at the hospital when Michael was admitted, reviewed Michael's CT scan and concluded that there was no evidence of pulmonary embolisms or mesenteric artery occlusion. In addition, Schubert observed no indication of an issue with Michael's spine based on her review of the CT scan.



Nevertheless, Michael was admitted to the hospital overnight due to his high International Normalized Ratio (INR), which measures the time it takes for blood to clot. Having a high INR put Michael at risk of a major bleeding event. The next day, hospital staff conducted more testing. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed and revealed pressure on Michael's spinal cord. The MRI specifically showed that an extensive epidural hematoma was present around the T5-T12 region of Michael's spine.



Michael underwent a decompressive thoracic laminectomy-a type of spinal surgery-to address the hematoma. After the surgery, it was determined that the epidural hematoma caused paraplegia at the T9 level of Michael's spine. Michael was initially unable to move from the waist down. After participating in rehabilitation for 2 months, Michael was able to walk with a walker. However, at the time of the trial, Michael was unable to urinate without a catheter and could not have sex with his wife.



On May 3, 2021, Michael and his wife, Elizabeth, filed a complaint against Schubert in the district court for Douglas County. The Larrisons alleged that Schubert committed malpractice when she failed to recognize and report the spinal hematoma on Michael's CT scans. Specifically, the Larrisons alleged that had Schubert discovered and immediately reported the presence of the hematoma on the CT scan, the surgery to relieve the problem would have occurred earlier, thus avoiding the partial paralysis that Michael has experienced. Elizabeth also alleged that she sustained consortium losses because of Schubert's malpractice.



* * *



Legal issue Can expert witnesses testify about the standard of care in a medical malpractice case if they lack the qualifications specific to the area being evaluated?



Key Phrases Medical malpractice. Loss of consortium. Standard of care. Expert testimony. Motion in limine.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded portions of Pancioli's and Davis' testimony based on the admissions they made in their depositions that they could not testify to the standard of care applicable in this case. This exclusion was based on foundational and relevancy grounds, not on scientific unreliability, and thus, the court was not required to conduct a Daubert/Schafersman analysis. Furthermore, the Larrisons were not prejudiced by this exclusion. We affirm the order of judgment in favor of Schubert.



AFFIRMED.