The plaintiffs hired numerous expert witnesses to review the case. Their opinions are shown below.
The anesthesiologist expert witness noted numerous shortcomings in the patient’s care. The crux of her opinion is the obvious statement that transfusing 4% lidocaine in this situation is inappropriate. Most commonly, 500mL bags of lidocaine come in 0.4% concentration, although the expert refers to it as 4% lidocaine here.
Another anesthesiologist was hired by the defense team for the surgery center. Her opinion was used to show that the error lay directly at the feet of the defendant anesthesiologist, not the surgery center itself. She claims that there was no reason to use Hespan in this case. If the defendant had treated the patient appropriately, she never would have given fluids and would not have had the opportunity to make a mistake.
A neurosurgeon offered an opinion that the standard of care was violated by performing the procedure at an outpatient surgical center. He also notes the financial conflict of interest.
The plaintiffs hired an orthopedic surgeon as well. His opinion is essentially the same as the neurosurgeon’s opinion, and the wording is quite similar.
A hospital administrator was hired as an expert on management and operating procedures for surgical centers.
The expert opinions listed here are primarily from the plaintiffs. The defendants were allowed to speak for themselves at deposition. In the next pages, excerpts from their statements will be shown.
Looking for more expert witness opinions? Check out the Legal Case Review eBook! It explores the legal proceedings behind 3 extra malpractice cases, and includes expert witness opinions for each case.