Opinion ID: 160983
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sleep Apnea Claim

Text: Plaintiff alleges that she has established a prima facie case of negligence based upon the opinions of her medical experts that the accident may have been caused by Mullins’s falling asleep at the wheel as a result of fatigue associated with sleep apnea. The district court found that the opinions of plaintiff’s experts “are based on a number of assumptions which Plaintiff is unable to establish through anything other than speculation.” Martinez v. CO2 Servs, Inc. , No. CIV 99-0033 JC/DJS, slip op. at 7 (D. N.M. June 21, 2000). We agree. Most importantly, plaintiff’s experts failed to set forth specific facts to support their -13- assumption that Mullins fell asleep at the wheel; 9 Ramo admits that it is impossible to determine whether Mullins suffered the ventricular fibrillation before or after the truck crossed into the construction zone; and neither of plaintiff’s experts has testified to a reasonable degree of medical probability. At best, therefore, plaintiff’s experts have only established a possibility that the accident was caused by Mullins’s falling asleep, and this is insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 10 See Matthiesen , 173 F.3d at 1247 ; Higgins v. Martin Marietta Corp. , 752 F.2d 492, 496 (10th Cir. 1985) (“When dealing with an issue of medical causation, a considered medical judgment is necessary, expressed in terms of probability rather than possibility”). Accordingly, plaintiff has presented insufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict in her favor on her sleep apnea claim, and summary judgment was 9 Plaintiff admits in her opening brief that there is no direct evidence that Mullins fell asleep. Ramo also admitted at his deposition that he has no factual information to support his assumption that Mullins fell asleep, and he only testified that this is “one possibility.” (Appellant’s App. at 343, 414.) Similarly, with respect to the issue of whether Mullins’s ventricular fibrillation was triggered by a sleep apnea episode after he fell asleep, Seligman only testified that this was a possibility. 10 The failure of plaintiff’s experts to expressly elevate their opinions above mere possibilities is best exemplified by the ambiguous statement of Seligman that “[t]he circumstances appear to suggest at least the likelihood that the patient may have fallen asleep at the wheel . . .” (Appellant’s App. at 118 (emphasis added).) Likewise, Ramo was only able to conclude that Mullins’s “sleep apnea could have been a factor” and that he “ may very well have fallen asleep at the wheel . . .” ( Id. at 113, 116 (emphasis added).) -14- therefore appropriate on Counts 1 and 3 of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See Biester , 77 F.3d at 1266.