Opinion ID: 76805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. David Gower

Text: 59 Dr. Gower's proffered testimony reiterated that of Drs. Merinkangas and Darouiche; namely, that if McDowell had been treated earlier, his recovery would have been faster. Dr. Gower could not, however, measure the level that McDowell's improvement might have been, only stating that instead of taking years, [recovery] might have only taken a couple of months. Dr. Gower acknowledged that there were no scientific studies that bolstered his theory, but explained that there were significant reports and case studies demonstrating that extended paralysis reduced the possibility of a full recovery. Dr. Gower, however, could not specifically identify any such articles, case studies or reports to support this premise. Even more telling is that Dr. Gower opined that when compared to other patients who experienced 24-36 hour paralysis, McDowell seem[ed] better than most, and Gower expressed surprise at McDowell's degree of recovery. In effect, McDowell himself did not fit Dr. Gower's theory. Without any support, Dr. Gower's opinion failed to meet Daubert 's reliability requirement, as it had not been tested, subjected to peer review, or assigned a rate of error. We agree with the district court's decision to exclude Dr. Gower's testimony. 60 In sum, although we find that the district court erred in excluding the experts' testimony as to the applicable standard of care, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the causation testimony against Nurse Brown and Wexford. As the Supreme Court wrote in Daubert, scientific evidence must fit the plaintiff's theory of causation. 509 U.S. at 591, 113 S.Ct. 2786. In this case, none of the doctors' theories fit as evidence relevant to the cause of plaintiffs' injuries. 61 More importantly, McDowell does not argue that the doctors' causation theories are sound. Instead, McDowell complains that the district court abused its discretion by extending its ruling that the evidence was inadmissible against Grady to the Wexford defendants. Such action by the district court is well within the ambit of its discretion, and McDowell has not demonstrated why the testimony is reliable and admissible under Daubert, Kumho Tire, and Fed.R.Evid. 702. We agree with the district court that the testimony essentially boils down to an opinion that earlier surgical intervention would be preferable. The experts then made the leap from this presumably accepted scientific principle ... to an unsupported scientific principle ... that a delay of more than four hours caused Plaintiff's injury. This leap of faith was supported by little more than the fact that early treatment begets improved recovery. The experts, however, provided no existing research detailing the extent of injury or recovery at different time intervals. 62 McDowell has offered no reliable evidence that earlier medical intervention would have prevented or diminished his injury. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that McDowell's evidence is legally unreliable and inadmissible under the standards set by Daubert and its progeny.