Goodnoe et al v. United States of America
ORDER - GRANTING 21 Motion to Strike. The Court grants Defendants motion to partially strike the testimony of Dr. Weissman to the extent that he is precluded from rendering opinions regarding the surgical aspects of this incident. Dr. Weissman, ho wever, is not precluded from providing any testimony regarding Ms. Ramseys physical condition prior to, and after, the surgery, or any post-operative management by the Defendant, including whether Ms. Ramsey should have been prescribed and given the blood thinner, Lovenox. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (kh)
In the United States District Court
Western District of Texas
CURTIS GOODNOE, et. al
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
On this day came on to be considered Defendant’s motion to strike (docket no. 21).
In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Ritsuko Ramsey “presented to
the Mike O’Callahan Federal Hospital Emergency Department complaining of a two day history
of abdominal pain and nausea. A CT scan was performed which showed an acute appendicitis,
On June 24, 2010, she was taken to the operating room and during the
procedure her appendix ruptured. Following the operation she developed respiratory problems
and died on June 30. A later autopsy revealed “a large retroperitoneal flesh hematoma … which
resulted in clinical hypovolemia followed by a cardiac arrhythmia. Also identified was a focal
splenic subcapsular hematoma, and an incarcerated partial small bowel wall hernia at the site of
the trocar insertion at the inner abdominal wall.” Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant was
negligent in the performance of the appendectomy, in lacerating the patient’s spleen, and in
failing to timely diagnose and treat the injuries.
Government’s motion to strike portions of Edward C. Weissman, M.D.’s affidavit
In the original complaint filed in this case on September 12, 2011, Plaintiffs attached an affidavit
of Dr. Weissman. In that affidavit he states he has been practicing medicine since 1984,
primarily in the area of internal medicine. He opines that Ms. Ramsey died as a result of
substandard operative and postoperative care.
The Government argues that Plaintiffs raise both surgical and internal medicine issues.
In addition, a “central issue” involves whether Ms. Ramsey should have been prescribed and
given a blood thinner, Lovenox. The Government argues that Dr. Weissman lacks the requisite
“substantive experience in surgical procedures dealing with laparoscopic appendectomy or open
laparotomy….” Accordingly, the Government moves to limit the testimony of Dr. Weissman to
Plaintiffs’ counsel has not filed a response to this motion, but has informed the law clerk
assisting in this case that he does not oppose the Government’s motion.
The Court grants Defendant’s motion to partially strike the testimony of Dr. Weissman to
the extent that he is precluded from rendering opinions regarding the surgical aspects of this
incident. Dr. Weissman, however, is not precluded from providing any testimony regarding Ms.
Ramsey’s physical condition prior to, and after, the surgery, or any post-operative management
by the Defendant, including whether Ms. Ramsey should have been prescribed and given the
blood thinner, Lovenox.
SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?