U.S. Appellate Court Affirms Witness’s Exclusion—Cites New Rule 702 but Follows Abrogated Precedent Instead

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
January 19, 2024
8062 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
economic damages & lost profits
expert witness, expert testimony, rule 702, reliability, expert report, motion to exclude, malpractice, summary judgment

Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.
2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1301; 91 F.4th 59; 2024 WL 207717
US
Federal Court
1st Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Dr. Jason S James, Dr. Adrián Colón Laracuente, Dr. Alfredo S. Colón Martínez, Dr. Anibelle Altieri
Barron, Lipez, Montecalvo

Summary

The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.

See Also

Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc.

The district court in this case excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical expert witness in this medical malpractice case, citing Rule 702, resulting in a summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the district court, citing Rule 702 in affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ witness. Even though the 2023 amended Rule 702 was cited, the circuit court reverted back to the pre-amended Rule 702 to bolster its exclusion of the witness.