Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Goodrich

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 25, 2019

ALISANT SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH GOODRICH, R.N., TERI MASSEY, N.P., In Their Individual Capacities, and CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS AND TERI MASSEY'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ELICITING EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT MICHAEL BERGMAN, M.D. [ECF No. 49]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Court Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On October 8, 2016, Alisant Scott experienced a spontaneous rupture of a mass in her right breast - a problem she started complaining about on September 23, 2016. Because of the rupture, doctors performed a simple mastectomy.

         This suit concerns the treatment and care Scott received before the rupture and mastectomy. Scott alleges Defendants Teri Massey, N.P. and Correct Care Solutions' actions are liable for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and medical malpractice under Michigan law.

         Defendants filed this motion to preclude Scott from eliciting standard of care and proximate cause testimony from Michael Bergman, M.D. The proximate cause testimony that Defendants seek to preclude appears to be that earlier intervention would have resulted in a better outcome for Scott.

         Scott says she intends to call another expert to testify on the applicable standard of care. As such, that issue is MOOT.

         As to Dr. Bergman's proposed proximate cause testimony, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

         II. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On September 23, 2016, while detained at the Oakland County jail, Scott requested immediate medical attention due to a swollen right breast. In her health service request form, she noted a previous history of similar issues with her left breast. On September 25th, Elizabeth Goodrich, R.N. - who at one time was a defendant but is no longer a party - examined Scott and noted: a 6x6 inch mass around Scott's nipple; her breast was warm to the touch; the skin around her nipple was red; Scott's pain was an 8 on a 10-point scale; and doctors removed a mass from Scott's left breast in 2010 or 2011.

         Goodrich spoke with Defendant Teri Massey, N.P. Massey verbally ordered bactrim twice daily for ten days and motrin for seven days.

         Goodrich scheduled a follow-up for Scott on September 28th with a doctor. Neither party addresses what happened at this follow-up, or whether it even took place.

         On September 29th, Massey met with Scott. Massey noted Scott's continued complaints of pain, swelling, and redness to her right breast. Scott indicated her breast issues started on September 23rd, and that antibiotics did not alleviate her pain. Scott told Massey about her earlier left breast issues that resulted in cyst removal surgery. Massey ordered an ultrasound for Scott, prescribed mobic and ice packs, and discontinued the bactrim.

         On September 30th, doctors performed an ultrasound on Scott's right breast. The ultrasound revealed four masses. Doctors recommended a mammogram and biopsy.

         On October 1st, Scott submitted a second medical request. She again described severe pain and wrote that her condition was not “minor.” On October 7th she submitted a third request. She stated her breast was infected and complained that she'd been in pain for over two weeks.

         On Saturday, October 8th, Scott underwent a mammogram examination. Doctors admitted her into the hospital. Scott developed a fever and a physician scheduled a surgery to drain her right breast. Scott's breast mass ruptured the night before the scheduled surgery. Dr. Dana Busch elected to perform a simple mastectomy following the rupture; most of Scott's breast tissue was necrotic.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 702 govern the admissibility of expert testimony. Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Rule 702:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.