The New Mexico Supreme Court issued an opinion January 22 in *Burns v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services*, addressing procedural questions about expert witness disclosure deadlines in medical malpractice litigation. The case presents important questions about when courts may strike untimely expert testimony and the appropriate sanctions for discovery violations.
Plaintiff Suzanne Burns sued Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Dr. Navjeet Kaur for medical malpractice. The case centers on Burns' failure to meet court-imposed deadlines for expert witness disclosures, which became critical when defendants moved for summary judgment.
According to the Supreme Court opinion, Burns provided new expert witness opinions on causation months after the expert witness disclosure deadline had passed and several weeks after the discovery deadline expired. The untimely opinions came in response to summary judgment motions filed by Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Dr. Kaur.
The expert testimony was submitted in the form of an affidavit attached to Burns' response to the summary judgment motions. However, the district court found that this new affidavit contradicted the same expert's prior deposition testimony on the causation issue, raising questions about the consistency and reliability of the expert's opinions.
Defendants Presbyterian Healthcare Services and Dr. Kaur filed motions to strike the expert's affidavit, arguing that the untimely submission violated court deadlines and discovery rules. The district court, presided over by Judge Joshua A. Allison, took what the Supreme Court characterized as "two, distinct steps" in resolving the matter.
First, the district court granted the defendants' motions to strike the new, untimely affidavit containing the causation opinions. The court determined that allowing the late submission would be unfairly prejudicial to the defendants and would undermine the orderly management of the litigation process.
Second, after striking the affidavit, the district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that Burns lacked sufficient evidence to establish causation in her medical malpractice claims. Without the stricken expert testimony, Burns could not meet her burden of proving that the defendants' alleged negligence caused her injuries.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Burns argued that striking the affidavit containing the causation opinions was effectively a sanction of dismissal. This argument suggests that Burns viewed the district court's action as disproportionately harsh, particularly given that the expert testimony was crucial to establishing a key element of her malpractice claim.
The case highlights the tension between procedural compliance and substantive justice in civil litigation. Courts must balance the need to enforce discovery deadlines and maintain orderly proceedings against the potential for harsh results when procedural violations lead to case dismissal.
Expert witness testimony plays a particularly critical role in medical malpractice cases, where plaintiffs typically must present medical expert opinions to establish both the standard of care and causation. When such testimony is excluded for procedural reasons, plaintiffs often cannot proceed with their claims, makingthe stakes of compliance with discovery deadlines especially high.
The Supreme Court's review of this case likely will provide guidance to trial courts throughout New Mexico on when striking untimely expert testimony is appropriate and what factors courts should consider before taking such action. The decision also may clarify the relationship between discovery sanctions and summary judgment practice.
Burns was represented by attorneys from the Fine Law Firm, including Mark Fine, Joseph M. Fine, and James Johnson, all based in Albuquerque. Presbyterian Healthcare Services was represented by Kathleen M. Wilson and Hari-Amrit Khalsa from Hinkle Shanor LLP in Albuquerque, as well as Larry J. Montaño and Olga Serafimova from Holland & Hart LLP in Santa Fe.
Dr. Navjeet Kaur had separate representation from Madison, Mroz, Steinman, Kenny & Olexy, P.A., with attorneys M. Eliza Stewart and Jacqueline A. Olexy handling her defense.
The opinion was authored by Judge Gurley and represents the Supreme Court's review of the district court's handling of the discovery and summary judgment issues. The case came before the high court through an original proceeding on certiorari, indicating that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter directly rather than through the typical appellate process.
The full implications of the Supreme Court's decision will become clearer once legal practitioners and lower courts have had time to analyze and apply the ruling. The case likely will influence how medical malpractice attorneys handle expert witness disclosures and how trial courts manage discovery deadlines in complex litigation.