Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation Expert’s Report Did Not Contain Any Analysis of a Standard of Care
Posted on May 9, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case relates to the incarceration of Plaintiff, Nocomie Tomia Moore, in the Spokane County Jail, as well as medical care and treatment she received from Registered Nurse Tsubasa Bruce, Physician Assistant Denae Paul, and NaphCare, Inc.
Moore brought claims for violations of Washington State’s Medical Malpractice statute. Defendants sought to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness, Jonathan Pasma, D.O., as not meeting the required standards to offer such testimony.
Defendants argued that Pasma should be excluded for a number of reasons: (1) his disclosure is incomplete as he does not specifically reference any Defendant or describe in detail data or facts considered in rendering his decision; (2) his report and testimony is improperly offered as a matter of Washington law; and (3) his report and testimony do not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or Daubert.
Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Jonathan Pasma received his Doctorate of Osteopathy from Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences in 2012, and he is currently a licensed, board certified physician in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation.
Discussion by the Court
Exclusion pursuant to Washington State Medical Malpractice Law
In Washington, an expert must articulate what a reasonable medical professional would or would not have done, and then specify how a Defendant failed to act in that manner and show that this failure was the cause of injury.
The Court held that Pasma’s report did not contain any sort of standard on which he based his opinion. He did not analogize the present case with any hypothetical situation, study on which he had reviewed, or real past treatment in which a patient presenting with a similar injury to Plaintiff received a different standard of care than what was provided. He offered nothing by way of his perspective in the practice of medicine that established how a specific member of the medical team at the Spokane County Jail should have reacted; he instead drew cursory conclusions.
Exclusion based on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert
Defendants contended that Pasma’s report and testimony is neither reliable nor relevant, as his opinion is based on an inaccurate review of the record, he lacks the specialized knowledge of treatment of patients in a corrections setting, and he does not apply the higher degree of analysis typically found in an expert report.
First of all, Pasma is a physiatrist and testified as his deposition that he has no experience working in an urgent care, emergency room, or corrections setting, and has not independently diagnosed a hip fracture since residency.
Second, the Court found Pasma’s account of the factual background of the events of this case scant and arguably incorrect.
Basically, Pasma’s report did not contain any analysis of a standard of care and any Defendant’s specific breach. He provided a generalized conclusion that “Ms. Moore’s care, specifically timely triage, was improperly delayed 2 days, which of course implies that unnecessary pain/suffering occurred,” but offered nothing to support why this contention was true from his expert position as a physician. Moreover, he stated in his deposition that he was not asserting any violation of a standard of care by a nurse involved, nor did he want to provide a “label,” for the level of care provided by the physician’s assistant in this case.
Held
The Court excluded the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Jonathan Pasma.
Key Takeaway:
Even if the Court could look beyond the lack of reliability offered by Pasma’s report, the opinions he offers also lack the requisite relevancy such that offering them to a factfinder would be helpful. Rule 702 requires that an expert witness be vested with “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” that “will assist the trier of fact” in their understanding of the evidence. If satisfied, “a witness qualified as an expert . . . may testify thereto in the form of an opinion.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Nocomie Tomia Moore V. Naph Care Inc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv256 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Washington Eastern |
| Order Date: | May 08, 2025 |
