This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff underwent a series of medical procedures at Presbyterian Hospital in June and July 2014, including a cholecystectomy. She was discharged by the Defendant, Dr. Kaur, despite abnormal lab results. She returned to the hospital with pneumonia and pulmonary emboli, and later with a bile leak, resulting in a seven-week hospital stay. The Plaintiff alleged medical negligence against the Defendants for failing to diagnose surgical complications and discharging her prematurely (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: Granted Defendants' motions to strike the Plaintiff's expert affidavit and for summary judgment due to lack of causation evidence (paras 1, 6).
- Burns v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., A-1-CA-38594 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2024): Affirmed the district court's decision to strike the affidavit and grant summary judgment (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that striking the affidavit was effectively a sanction of dismissal, and the district court should have considered lesser sanctions (para 1).
- Defendants: Argued that the Plaintiff's expert affidavit was untimely and contradicted prior deposition testimony, justifying its exclusion and supporting summary judgment for lack of causation evidence (paras 1, 5-6).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by striking the Plaintiff's expert affidavit as untimely and contradictory?
- Was the striking of the affidavit a sanction requiring consideration of lesser sanctions?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavit and granting summary judgment (para 16).
Reasons
Per Gurley J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Zamora JJ., and Wray J. concurring):
The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Plaintiff's expert affidavit, as it was untimely and contradicted prior deposition testimony. The court properly exercised its inherent authority to enforce the scheduling order, rather than imposing a sanction. The Plaintiff failed to show good cause to amend the scheduling order, and allowing the affidavit would have prejudiced the Defendants by necessitating additional discovery and delaying the trial. The decision to strike the affidavit was within the district court's discretion to manage its docket efficiently (paras 10-15).