The Seventh Circuit held that an expert?s improper testimony as to the cause of death violated plaintiff?s substantial rights. In Hall v. Flannery, 840 F3d 922 (2016) the plaintiff?s daughter died following surgery to fix a 17year old skull fracture. Plaintiff claimed that her death was a failure to prescribe anti-seizure medication. Defendants claimed that no seizure had occurred and that a heart-related ailment was the likely cause of death.
Three of the defendant?s medical experts testified that a seizure was not the cause of death. One of these, Dr. Ruge, opined that a heart-related issue was a likelier cause of death. The reviewing court found that while the doctor was qualified to testify concerning seizure, he was not qualified to opine that a heart-related condition was a likelier cause of death. Further, that plaintiff?s substantial rights were violated because:
?Dr. Ruge was the only expert to opine about the purportedly ?numerous papers? that identify young athletes who died suddenly of heart-related illness. We cannot ignore the distinct possibility that Dr. Ruge?s discussion of these publications played a key role in the jury?s verdict, given the threshold nature of the cause of death inquiry.?
The court vacated the defense verdict and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.