- Professional Negligence;
- Personal Injury in matters not related to professional negligence;
- Workers Compensation;
- Family law issues where health or quality of care is in question;
- Medicare/SSI/SSDI benefit issues;
- Healthcare professional board disciplinary action investigation; or even
- Opposing Party testifying expert vetting reports.
MarGin offers Standard of Care reviews and causation evaluations within the parameters of Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. US, 457 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2006) which states in relevant part:
Wanda Poret (“Poret”), a [C]ertified [L]egal [N]urse [C]onsultant, was prepared to testify on Cleveland’s behalf that the BJACH employees deviated from the acceptable standard of care by neglecting to take a chest film and failing to diagnose congestive heart failure. In her report, she opined that had Samuel been treated for congestive heart failure on his initial visit, his subsequent deterioration could have been prevented. The United States objected to her admission as an expert witness, arguing that, as a nurse, she was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care owed by physician assistant Eubanks. The district court excluded her testimony without a written memorandum of reasons for the ruling.
The court went on to rule:
Poret’s written report focused exclusively on the failure of the physician assistant at BJACH to meet the requisite standard of care. In her opposition to the United States’ motion to exclude Poret’s testimony, Cleveland attempted to argue that Poret was qualified to read and explicate the “chronology of care” Samuel received at BJACH, as Poret possesses a Bachelors Degree in Nursing and is a Certified Legal Nurse Consultant. However, this argument is inapposite given the content of her report. As a nurse, Poret is not qualified to testify as to a physician’s standard of care or the standard of care governing a physician assistant who stands in the place of the treating physician.See Broussard, 921 So.2d at 132 (stating the rule that only physicians qualified in a particular medical field may testify as to the standard of care owed by physicians in that specialty). The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Poret’s testimony as she was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care applicable to a physician assistant. Id. at 405.