Plaintiff from Minnesota underwent cardiac catheterization due to unstable angina and congestive heart failure. The defendant cardiologist reported that the left main and left circumflex coronary arteries (LM and LCX) each had blockages of 90% and he then stented them.
Plaintiff alleges that the arteries were not so severely blocked and that the cardiologist breached the standard of care in performing an unnecessary procedure.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
1. Was the procedure necessary?
2. Was there a breach of standards?
Expert Witness Response
My review of the films indicates a blockage of less than 70% and 50% in the two arteries. Furthermore, the blockage of the LM is as a result of another stent that was placed unnecessarily by the defendant cardiologist three years earlier. As such, the stents placed during the recent procedure were unwarranted, medically unnecessary, and a direct breach in the standard of care. Falsely representing and charting a patient's medical history and clinical findings in a patient's medical records and using the same to obtain patient consent and/or to justify an unnecessary medical procedure is also a direct a breach of the standard of care.
This opinion is based upon my review of these medical records and radiologic films, and also based on my education, training, experience, expertise in cardiology, my knowledge of the facts of this case, and my knowledge of the relevant medical literature.
The cardiologist negligently assessed plaintiff’s condition, failed to consider alternate causes of his symptoms, exaggerated the degrees of stenosis, used the same as clinical justification for stent placement, made false representations to plaintiff and in his medical records, and failed to give adequate informed consent to him. It is further my opinion that these breaches in the standard of care proximately caused plaintiff to undergo unnecessary and damaging surgeries and/or procedures, which proximately caused permanent and physical injury to his heart and body as well as financial and emotional injury and damages to him and to his spouse.
Had plaintiff’s condition been treated with appropriate alternative measures, his complaints would have resolved without need of cardiac surgical intervention, and he would not have been exposed to the risks attendant with repeat, and/or multiple stent implantations.
The expert leads the cardiovascular division of a teaching hospital.
About the author
Kristin Casler
Kristin Casler is a seasoned legal writer and journalist with an extensive background in litigation news coverage. For 17 years, she served as the editor for LexisNexis Mealey’s litigation news monitor, a role that positioned her at the forefront of reporting on pivotal legal developments. Her expertise includes covering cases related to the Supreme Court's expert admissibility ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., a critical area in both civil and criminal litigation concerning the challenges of 'junk science' testimony.
Kristin's work primarily involves reporting on a diverse range of legal subjects, with particular emphasis on cases in asbestos litigation, insurance, personal injury, antitrust, mortgage lending, and testimony issues in conviction cases. Her contributions as a journalist have been instrumental in providing in-depth, informed analysis on the evolving landscape of these complex legal areas. Her ability to dissect and communicate intricate legal proceedings and rulings makes her a valuable resource in the legal journalism field.
