Cartledge v. Montano

The trial court erred in granting the defendant doctor's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness's testimony on the ground that he was not qualified, since this finding was based on a distinction without a difference regarding the witness's experience.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this medical-malpractice action, Emma Cartledge sued Jolene Montano, M.D. and her practice group, Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates of Augusta, P.C. collectively “Montano”, alleging that she suffered serious injuries as a result of Dr. Montano’s negligent performance of an intrauterine surgical procedure. On interlocutory appeal, Cartledge contends that the trial court erred in 1 granting Montano’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Cartledge’s medical expert; and 2 denying her motion in limine to exclude evidence regarding the fact that she had previously undergone abortion procedures. For the reasons set forth infra, we reverse the trial court’s grant of Montano’s motion in limine but affirm its denial of Cartledge’s motion in limine.

The record shows that in March 2005, Cartledge was experiencing abnormal uterine bleeding and irregular menstrual cycles and, thus, sought treatment from Dr. Montano, an obstetrician/gynecologist. After an ultrasound indicated a possible polyp or fibroid on the interior lining of Cartledge’s uterus, Dr. Montano recommended that Cartledge undergo a surgical procedure known as a cervical dilation and uterine curettage “D & C” with a hysteroscopy. As Dr. Montano explained to Cartledge during an April 2005 appointment, these procedures entail dilating the cervix, distending the uterus with a laparoscopic solution such as Sorbitol, inserting a small scope into the uterus to evaluate its lining, and then scraping the lining to remove the abnormal growth.

Cartledge v. Montano

The trial court erred in granting the defendant doctor's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness's testimony on the ground that he was not qualified, since this finding was based on a distinction without a difference regarding the witness's experience.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report