Question

Mrs. M. was admitted to an acute care facility for removal of a noncancerous brain lesion. Following her surgical procedure, she had problems swallowing, but no difficulty with respirations and breathing. On x-ray, her lungs showed no signs of congestion or infiltration. She was receiving humidified oxygen via an oxygen mask.  During transport from her hospital room to x-ray for a repeat chest film, the humidifier attached to her oxygen line was allowed to lay on its side, allowing water to accumulate and enter the patient’s lungs. The sole person who transported Mrs. M. to the x-ray department was an untrained patient transporter. The patient subsequently experienced aspiration pneumonia and was readmitted to the intensive care unit.  Following her recovery, the patient brought suit for the mishandling of the oxygen humidifier, subsequent aspiration pneumonia, and additional recovery time. At the trial, the patient transporter admitted that he had received no training regarding the transportation of patient receiving humidified oxygen and was not aware that there were any special precautions needed for transporting a patient who was receiving humidified oxygen. The plaintiff’s attorney presented no expert witness testimony regarding professional standards for patient transporter. The court ruled in favor of the medical center, noting that expert testimony was required. The patient appealed.

Question:  If it was determined that expert testimony was needed, what type of qualifications would you have chosen for the expert in this case?

Answer 1

Instructions around expert observers are usual by state and federal rubrics of indication, contingent on whether the circumstance is in state or federal law court.

Rendering to the Federal Rules of Indication, a capable expert observer is somebody who has information, ability, teaching, knowledge, or exercise in a particular arena. These experiences are usually also obligatory of expert observers in state judges.

Underneath federal rubrics, experts must improper their testament on adequate evidences or information of the kind rationally trusted upon by specialists in their arena, in order to assistance the jury comprehend issues that characteristically necessitate particular information. While non-expert witnesses can solitary appear about what they've understood or caught, expert observers are usually allowable to stretch their particular or specialized estimation.

For additional contentious technical subjects, courts must control if the testing approaches were dependable before confessing the expert's testimony. In federal courts and in numerous conditions, adjudicators will enquire whether the technical subject in enquiry has been exposed to noble evaluation, whether it can be verified, and whether the events have been available. Courts will also appearance at the degree of mistake in the testing.