Opinion ID: 1967565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Dr Mark Strom

Text: Dr. Mark Strom, a cardiac surgeon, was qualified as an expert witness to testify as to medical records, the standard of care for admitting physicians, and cardiac surgery. After voir dire, the trial court struck Dr. Strom's testimony regarding ION and Levophed. Prior to trial, Dr. Corso moved to exclude Dr. Strom as an expert. His motion was denied. Dr. Corso renewed his objection before Strom began his testimony and the trial judge agreed to voir dire Dr. Strom with respect to testimony pertaining to Levophed. Dr. Strom testified that he no longer practiced surgery, had never used Levophed, had never written any articles or conducted research on Levophed, and was unable to give an opinion about the correct dosage of Levophed. With respect to ION, Dr. Strom testified that he had never treated anyone with ION and that he had no opinion as to whether earlier treatment would have prevented its occurrence in Dr. Haidak's case. [5] Dr. Strom's qualifications as a cardiac surgeon are not in dispute. Appellees assert on appeal, as they did at trial, that Dr. Strom did not have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in that field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth. Dyas, supra, 376 A.2d at 832. Thus, we examine whether Dr. Strom was properly qualified to testify as an expert on ION and the use of Levophed. An expert's opinion must be based on fact or adequate data .... [N]ot a mere guess or conjecture. Sponaugle v. Pre-Term, Inc., 411 A.2d 366, 367 (D.C.1980). Expert testimony may be excluded when the expert is unable to show a reliable basis for their theory. Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289 F.3d 1193, 1208 (10th Cir.2002). Where there is an articulable reason to doubt an expert's competency in a particular area, the trial judge need not qualify the witness. Glorious Food, Inc. v. Georgetown Prospect Place Assoc., 648 A.2d 946, 948 (D.C.1994). With respect to Levophed, Dr. Strom testified at deposition and during voir dire that he never used it, that it wasn't used much anymore, that he had never conducted any studies, tests, trials, or research on it, that he did not know proper dosages, and that he could not testify that Levophed caused ION. The foregoing admissions are sufficient to support the trial judge's conclusion that Dr. Strom did not have a reliable basis for his conclusions on the usage of Levophed and that he had inadequate knowledge and experience about Levophed to aid the jury in its search for truth. With respect to ION, Dr. Strom was deposed as follows: Dr. Strom: ... I believe that this particular complication [ION] is a preventable complication and should not occur, period. Q: Have you seen any literature that is that definite about it? A: I can't cite anything right now. Dr. Strom also stated that he would defer to an ophthalmologist as to whether treatment could prevent development of ION. Dr. Haidak points to the following exchange, which took place at a bench conference during Dr. Strom's testimony, as showing that the trial court impermissibly intruded on the province of the jury by making findings of fact: The Court: [T]he only ischemia that is relevant here is ION. That is it. You're going to have to take him down the rest of the road here to qualify him. You've not done that.... But just to leave it off is ischemia is ischemia is ischemia doesn't get you there based on the evidence provided in the case thus far. Mr. Jacobovitz [co-counsel for Dr. Haidak]:... There have been three witnesses, I believe, and I have my notes, that have testified that there is no difference between ischemia and ION. And so that's an issue of fact- The Court: Let me suggest something to you, I think that we have, the evidence that I understand is ischemia is the same thing whatever the organ is i.e., it's a deprivation of oxygen. Mr. Jacobovitz: Right. The Court: That doesn't necessarily mean I can'tI don't think that one can infer from that or the testimony that's been provided here that the treatment for all types of ischemia are the same. ION is a different animal based on the testimony that I've heard. It really is. So, if you're gonna use this guy. Mr. Lobel: Right. The Court:to testify about the treatment of ION you're going to have to qualify him to do that. That's the ischemia we're concerned about. That's the ischemia that's relevant to this case. We do not view this as anything but a ruling on expert witness qualification. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Strom's testimony.