It was on this point that the court engaged its most absurd conclusions. To justify its decision, the court reviewed testimony of various anesthesiologists testifying for the plaintiff as expert witnesses. While the anesthesiologists could not themselves agree on what had gone wrong, they were unanimous in their conclusion that the nurse anesthetist was negligent for having missed it. They also agreed that if an anesthesiologist had been present, the anesthesiologist would have easily recognized what their fellow expert anesthesiologists could not agree to and would have taken appropriate steps. This testimony is, at best, mere speculation.
Expert testimony is supposed to have some scientific basis.
But the testimony relied on in the LaCroix case was not within the proper scope of expert testimony. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that anesthesiologists provide better care than nurse anesthetists. What scientific evidence there is says there is no proof that the care of either provider is superior. Unscientifically, this conclusion seems obvious because if anesthesiologists provided better care, there would be no profession of nurse anesthesia. The anesthesiologists' testimony was speculative and untestable and should have been excluded as a matter of law.