Opinion ID: 1445166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expert Affidavit

Text: The district court's scheduling order also required disclosure of expert witnesses by July 3, 2006. Popoalii timely disclosed Dr. Jerold Dreyer. Dr. Dreyer filed his expert report on June 30, 2006. In this report, consisting of a three paragraph letter, Dr. Dreyer opined that despite her earlier diagnosis, Popoalii never had viral meningitis, and that there was no significant effort on the part of the correctional institute to ascertain her prior medical diagnosis and condition. This resulted in the lack of appropriate care and led to the blindness of Ms. Popoalii. During his deposition Dr. Dreyer testified that his June 30th letter accurately and completely summarized his opinions in this case and that he had not prepared any other reports. He also testified that he had no specific criticisms of the defendants' actions. Further, Dr. Dreyer acknowledged that even with appropriate treatment a patient with cryptococcal meningitis may nonetheless develop blindness. He testified that there were two ways cryptococcal meningitis could lead to blindnessintracranial pressure or a direct fungal invasion of the optic nerve. Dr. Dreyer stated that only if blindness is caused by intracranial pressure could relieving that pressure reduce the chances of blindness. Dr. Dreyer would not state an opinion as to whether Popoalii's blindness was caused by intracranial pressure or fungushe indicated that his expertise did not extend to identifying the specific cause of her blindness and declined to speculate. Popoalii's response to defendants' summary judgment motion included an additional affidavit from Dr. Dreyer stating: c. The defendant's failure to immediately obtain and review Plaintiff's medical records hampered their ability to adequately assess and treat Plaintiff's condition in that the defendantsspecifically the treating nurses and physicians at the correctional facilitycould not know which of Plaintiff's body systems to test and monitor, and that they therefore did not know how to properly treat Plaintiff. In particular, the defendants failed to test and monitor Plaintiff's intracranial pressure prior to April 8, 2004, and that appropriate testing/monitoring thereof could have likely prevented Plaintiff's blindness. d. Had the defendants obtained and reviewed Plaintiff's medical records, it is more likely than not that the defendants would have been able to plan a course of appropriate treatment such that Plaintiff could have avoided blindness as a complication of her condition. . . . The court granted defendants' motion to strike this additional affidavit because the defendants had not had a chance to depose Dr. Dreyer on these opinions and Popoalii would not be prejudiced by striking the affidavit.