Opinion ID: 1965004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Weir and COG's Appeal

Text: Weir and COG's assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of testimony presented by Brianna's expert witness, Robertson. Specifically, Weir and COG argue that Robertson's testimony was not sufficiently definitive on the issue of causation. Regarding the degree to which Weir's alleged negligence caused Brianna's injuries, Robertson testified on direct examination in relevant part as follows: Q If we look at Dr. Weir's contact with the patient in the chart from December 15, 1992, until the child was born, do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether his failure to meet the appropriate standard of care as you've described it would have been a proximately contributing cause to the premature birth of Brianna Snyder? Do you have such an opinion? A Yes. .... Q What is your opinion? A My opinion is that since the diagnosis was not made, the appropriate treatment was not undertaken, so we don't know how much longer the pregnancy could have gone on. I think there's reasonable probability that had the diagnosis been made and treatment undertaken, that the pregnancy would have gone on longer and the two most critical things is how old it is and how big it is when its [sic] born. I don't know how long, but statistically somewhere in the range of two to six weeks. Q And you can state that with a reasonable degree of medical probability? A Yes. .... Q And do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability as to approximately how much longer the pregnancy could have been extended if she had received proper treatment as of December 15, 1992? .... [A] Yes. Q And what is your opinion? .... [A] The range could have been as little as two or three days and probably not over six weeks with the vast majority being between  somewhere between two and six weeks. Without the benefit of any therapy, I can't tell you exactly how long the pregnancy would have been. .... Q Do you have an opinion as to whether this child would have been born disabled if the pregnancy had been prolonged as long as six weeks? .... [A] I have an opinion, yes. [Q] What is your opinion? .... [A] Well, given the gestational age that Brianna was delivered at which was 25 weeks, the outside probably would have gotten six weeks. I would have expected her to still have some disabilities because she would have been born at less than 32 weeks and that's  and certainly in 1992, that was kind of the cut off where you see problems with prematurity. I would expect those disabilities to be less but she may very well have had some disabilities. .... Q Do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability as to whether the child would have been less disabled if the appropriate measures had been instituted on December 15, 1992; do you have such an opinion? A Yes. Q And what is that opinion? A They would have been more likely to work because she was not as sick at that time and the likelihood of prolonging the pregnancy would have been greater. The sicker she is at the time you start your treatment, the less likely you are to gain that extra time that you need.