SUSAN DIMMOCK v. LAWRENCE & MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., SC 18053/18054

Judicial District of Middlesex

 Medical Malpractice; Whether Proposed Amendments to the Complaint Should have been Permitted under the Relation Back Doctrine; Whether Plaintiff's Expert was Properly Precluded; Whether Plaintiff was Required to Present Expert Testimony in Support of Medical Malpractice Claims. The plaintiff brought this action against two doctors and the defendant hospital alleging that, as a result of the defendants' negligence, she suffered complications, which included an infection, following spinal fusion surgery that required her to undergo several additional procedures.  The plaintiff disclosed that she intended to call as an expert witness a doctor who would testify that the defendants were negligent in failing to inform her adequately of her treatment options and in using a bone graft, rather than surgical hardware, to fuse her spine.  The defendants moved to preclude the plaintiff's expert witness, arguing that the complaint alleged only that their negligence caused the plaintiff to suffer an infection and that the proffered expert had nothing to offer concerning the issue of infection.  The plaintiff responded by seeking to amend her complaint to include allegations that the defendants were negligent in failing to inform her adequately of her surgical options and in the manner that they fused her spine.  The trial court refused to allow the amendments to the complaint, finding that the prior complaint alleged only negligence surrounding the plaintiff's infection following the spinal fusion procedure and that the proposed amendments asserted a new cause of action that was barred by the statute of limitations.  The court also granted the motions to preclude the plaintiff's expert from testifying after the expert revealed at a deposition that he did not intend to offer any opinion concerning the plaintiff's infection.  The court subsequently rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant doctors because, in light of the ruling on the motions to preclude, the plaintiff lacked any expert to testify that they had breached the standard of care.  The plaintiff appeals, claiming the court wrongly refused to permit her to amend the complaint where she claims that the proposed amendments did not state a new cause of action but rather "related back" to the allegations of the prior complaint.  The plaintiff also claims that the court's preclusion of her expert's testimony was wrongly predicated on the conclusion that her complaint alleged only deviations from the standard of care that caused her infection.  Finally, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly rendered judgment for the defendants because she lacked an expert to testify in support of her claims.  While conceding that expert testimony is generally required to prove medical malpractice, the plaintiff argues that her complaint included allegations of ordinary or gross negligence that could be proved without reliance on expert testimony.