Court Opinion

ID: 9786045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:45:56.685464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:41.131154
License: Public Domain

Beier, J.,
dissenting: I agree with the majority that any variance in the degree of specificity Dr. Knight recorded in his operative report on the vintage of Jadon’s bowel necrosis and that to which he testified at his deposition did not transform him into an expert rather than a fact witness. It also did not conclusively dispose of any genuine issue of material fact, and it did not eliminate the possibility that plaintiffs could prove Dr. Watters’ breach of the standard of care caused plaintiffs’ injuries. If anything, Dr. Knight’s oral elaboration on his written record gave plaintiffs a weakness they could have exploited to their advantage at trial. They could have argued any variance was indicative of Dr. Knight’s bias, of one physician consciously or unconsciously covering for the mistakes of another.
That being said, I must dissent. Although plaintiffs do not lack an expert opinion on causation, that opinion exists in a evidentiary vacuum.
Dr. Giles is clearly capable of describing the problems that may arise when a physician performing a Caesarean section is unaware of gastroschisis in the baby he or she is delivering. But neither he nor the plaintiffs point to any documentary or testimonial evidence that such problems did arise in this case.
When defending a motion for summary judgment, a party cannot rest on mere theory. It must come forward with facts that support the theory. If plaintiffs were capable of doing so here, they did not demonstrate that ability on this record. I would therefore affirm.
McFarland, C.J., joins in the foregoing dissent.