Nursing Expert Witness’ Opinion Addressing Medical Causation Excluded
Posted on February 10, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff, Prunella Banks filed this medical negligence action against Lakeland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC (“Lakeland”) and one of its nurses, Morgan McGuire, for injuries allegedly suffered by her late mother, Queen Banks during her short residency at the nursing home from April 21, 2021, to May 3, 2021.
According to the Complaint, Nurse McGuire applied “Biofreeze gel” to Banks’ shoulders on April 30, 2021, left the gel in the room, and thereafter, a personal care assistant entered the room and “began rubbing the gel all over Queen Banks’ body including her inner thighs and private part areas.” Banks alleged her mother suffered extreme pain and irritation as a result of this event, necessitating medical treatment.
Plaintiff’s version of events has changed since filing the Complaint, and Plaintiff now claims that McGuire herself misapplied Elidel 1% Cream (not Biofreeze gel) on Banks’ vagina and rectum, resulting in damages.
Plaintiff retained a nursing expert, Lotashia Patrick, to offer opinions such as Lakeland’s staff misapplied the medication to Banks’ “private areas,” causing her “burning, itching, and irritation of her vaginal area.”
At her deposition, Patrick also testified that the medication was misapplied to Banks’ “groin and buttocks” so as to cause her “second-degree burns” and associated pain. Lakeland argued that Patrick cannot offer opinions about Lakeland’s standard of care, any breach of it, or medical causation.
Nursing Expert Witness
Lotashia Patrick, MSN, APRN, PMHNP-BC is a certified and licensed
advanced practice registered nurse.
Nurse Patrick received both a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Nursing at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Nurse Patrick is a member of the American Nurses Association and the Mississippi Nurses Association & Eliza Pillars Registered Nurses of Mississippi. She has over fifteen (15) years of practice experience in the field of nursing.
Discussion by the Court
Identifying the Standard of Care
According to Lakeland, Patrick can’t testify about its standard of care because she lacks sufficient experience working at a nursing home, evaluating chemical burns, assessing skin breakdown, or applying the medication at issue in this case (Elidel). Banks counters that Patrick worked two months as a supervisor over the RNs at a nursing home and that her credentials qualify her to testify to the standard of care.
Banks offered Patrick for the opinion that applying Elidel in a manner contrary to its manufacturer’s recommendations would violate the standard of care. According to the Court, this is not an opinion that requires the level of particularized expertise Lakeland suggests. Whether a medication is correctly administered lies within the area of nursing practice. And Patrick’s education and experience in various nursing jobs qualifies her to offer this opinion.
Moreover, none of the cases Lakeland cited said that the relevant nursing standard changed from one type of facility to the other, and Lakeland did not show that Patrick was unqualified to supervise nurses at a nursing home.
Breach of the Standard of Care
Although Patrick can testify about the standard of care, Lakeland has shown that she lacks sufficient facts to testify about whether Lakeland’s staff did breach that standard by misapplying the Elidel.
Patrick looked at various records and one deposition to render her opinions. But as to her breach opinion, Patrick testified that she relied on the allegations in the complaint.
The Court granted Lakeland’s motion to exclude Patrick’s opinion that the facility incorrectly administered the medication to Banks. Patrick can opine that if the medication was applied other than as directed by the manufacturer, then a breach of the standard of care occurred.
Medical Causation
To the extent that Patrick in her deposition said or implied that the Elidel caused second-degree burns or other severe injuries to body parts for which Elidel is not contraindicated, the Court held that those opinions went beyond the scope of a nursing expert and are thus inadmissible.
Held
The Court denied in part Lakeland’s motion, insofar as Patrick may offer opinions at trial about what standard of care applied to Lakeland’s administration of topical medication to Banks and whether any application to areas contraindicated for that medication would violate the standard of care. Any other opinions from Patrick, including those alleging breach or addressing medical causation, are excluded.
Key Takeaway:
- Rule 702 does not mandate that an expert be highly qualified in order to testify about a given issue. Differences in expertise bear chiefly on the weight to be assigned to the testimony by the trier of fact, not its admissibility.
- Under Rule 702(b), experts must base opinions “on sufficient facts or data.” Allegations in a complaint fail that test.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Banks V. Lakeland Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:22cv433 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Mississippi Southern |
| Order Date: | February 6, 2025 |
