D. Christian Wise v. Mayo Clinic Rochester ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-2870
    ___________________________
    D. Christian Wise; Cheryl Wise
    Plaintiffs - Appellants
    v.
    Mayo Clinic Rochester
    Defendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: October 17, 2018
    Filed: December 19, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    D. Christian and Cheryl Wise sued Mayo Clinic Rochester for medical
    malpractice and lost. On appeal, they challenge the district court’s1 decision to
    exclude the testimony of an expert witness at trial. We affirm.
    After months of unexplained joint pain in his hips and shoulders, Christian
    sought treatment from Dr. Thomas Osborn, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic
    Rochester. Dr. Osborn was unable to identify the cause of Christian’s pain and
    scheduled him for another visit. In the meantime, Dr. Osborn prescribed prednisone,
    a corticosteroid, in increasingly larger doses to treat the pain. Other than telling
    Christian to taper his dosage over time if possible, Dr. Osborn did not take any steps
    to counteract the potential side effects of prednisone.
    Roughly ten weeks later, Christian again began suffering from pain, this time
    in his lower back. Another doctor diagnosed him with four vertebral compression
    fractures—possibly caused by steroid-induced osteoporosis, a side effect of
    prednisone. He eventually underwent back surgery to fix the damage.
    The Wises filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Mayo Clinic
    Rochester for medical malpractice. Their theory was that Dr. Osborn should have
    done more to counteract the bone-depleting side effects of prednisone. Their only
    expert witness on this point was Dr. Harold Rosen, an endocrinologist who
    specializes in treating patients with osteoporosis and has researched the risks of
    prednisone. He was prepared to testify that Dr. Osborn failed to exercise reasonable
    care when he prescribed prednisone without taking additional precautions to combat
    its side effects.
    1
    The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    Midway through trial, the defense challenged Dr. Rosen’s ability to provide
    expert medical testimony in the case. After both sides had a chance to question Dr.
    Rosen, the district court ruled that he was “not qualified to testify regarding the
    standard of care for prescribing prednisone under these circumstances” because he
    did not have “practical training or experience with the specific treatment at issue.”
    Without an expert to testify on the standard of care, the Wises could not prove their
    case. See Bigay v. Garvey, 
    575 N.W.2d 107
    , 111 n.4 (Minn. 1998) (explaining that
    expert testimony on the applicable standard of care is required in a medical-
    malpractice case). Accordingly, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law
    to Mayo Clinic Rochester.
    The Wises argue that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded
    Dr. Rosen’s testimony. See Stowell v. Huddleston, 
    643 F.3d 631
    , 634 (8th Cir. 2011).
    Because this is a diversity action arising under Minnesota law, Minnesota’s expert-
    witness rules apply. See 
    id.
     at 633–34.
    To testify about the standard of care, a proposed medical expert must have
    “both sufficient scientific knowledge of and some practical experience with the
    subject matter of the offered testimony.” Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 
    262 N.W.2d 684
    , 692
    (Minn. 1977). The dispute here centers on the second requirement, practical
    experience, and specifically on whether Dr. Rosen possessed “practical knowledge
    of what is usually and customarily done by physicians under circumstances similar
    to those which confronted [Dr. Osborn].” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted); see also Stowell, 
    643 F.3d at 637
     (stating that a court should not define the relevant circumstances so
    broadly “that it enables an otherwise unqualified witness to offer expert opinion”).
    Here, the relevant circumstance was having prescribed prednisone to a patient like
    Christian who suffered from unexplained joint pain.
    Dr. Rosen acknowledged that he did “not see patients in [this] setting” and that
    he did not have “practical knowledge” of how a doctor would “usually and
    -3-
    customarily” treat a patient like Christian. And he conceded that he prescribed
    prednisone to his patients only “[i]nfrequently.”
    To be sure, Dr. Rosen testified that he had theoretical knowledge about the side
    effects of prednisone and how to prevent them. This type of knowledge, however,
    was not a substitute for practical experience. See Lundgren v. Eustermann, 
    370 N.W.2d 877
    , 880–81 (Minn. 1985) (holding that a proposed witness lacked the
    requisite practical experience because he admitted that he had never prescribed the
    drug at issue and did “not know how physicians themselves customarily use[d] [the
    drug] in treatment of their patients”). The district court accordingly did not abuse its
    discretion in excluding Dr. Rosen’s testimony.
    We affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2870

Filed Date: 12/19/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021