These select articles reflect current events relevant to our areas of legal practice.

To receive email notifications of new article postings, please register.




06/25/08

Ruffin v. Boler, Appeal No. 1-06-3437

On June 25, 2008, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court issued a published opinion unanimously holding that a biomechanical engineer, Dr. Michele Grimm, was properly allowed to testify on the issue of causation in a medical malpractice case alleging negligence on the defendant obstetrician's part in dealing with shoulder dystocia during delivery, leading to Erb's Palsy. Ruffin v. Boler, Appeal No. 1-06-3437. The admissibility of a causation opinion of a non-medical expert in a medical malpractice action has not been previously addressed in an Illinois published opinion.

The defense was successfully presented at trial by Marilee Clausing and Charles Bletsas resulting in a verdict in favor of the defendant obstetrician. Another judge, ruling on Plaintiff’s post-trial motion after the trial judge retired, granted Plaintiff a new trial finding that the trial judge erred in allowing Dr. Grimm’s testimony and in allowing certain impeachment of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Stuart Edelberg.

The defense verdict was successfully upheld on appeal by Diane Jennings.

Dr. Grimm is a professor of biomechanical engineering at Wayne State University who, in conjunction with an obstetrician affiliated with the university, developed a computer simulation program that allowed her to study the amount of force exerted on a fetus's brachial plexus nerve by the maternal forces of labor (contractions and pushing) if the fetus's shoulder is impacted against the mother's pubic bone. Her studies have concluded that the maternal forces of labor can be sufficient of themselves to cause a brachial plexus injury. This testimony was allowed at trial over plaintiff's objections that: (1) only a medical doctor can testify on the question of causation in a medical malpractice case; (2) Dr. Grimm was not qualified to testify on the question of causation; and (3) Dr. Grimm's research did not meet the Frye standard of reliability that new or novel scientific principles must satisfy.

The appellate court rejected all three objections and held that the jury's verdict in favor of Dr. Boler should stand. The Court explained that:
  1. While a medical doctor is necessary to testify on standard of care in a medical malpractice case, that same requirement does not apply to the question of causation, and there are cases where other experts in other fields, including biomechanical engineering, may be the ones who have the knowledge required to answer a specific question such as how an infant's body interacts with objects in its environment, including the mother's bones.
  2. Dr. Grimm was highly qualified in the field of biomechanical engineering generally, and in the area of maternal/fetal interaction in particular.
  3. Dr. Grimm's own testimony established that her research was based on well-acted principles of anatomy and engineering, and the reliability of her work was reflected in the fact that (a) three articles that she co-authored have been accepted for publication in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology; (b) her presentations on this subject have twice won awards for research excellence from the Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine; (c) her work is referenced in two treatises recognized as authoritative, Precis and Williams' textbook on obstetrics; and (d) a federal district court in California recently found her qualified under the Daubert standard, which includes review of the work's acceptance in the relevant scientific community.


Click here for the full opinion in PDF format.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to Previous Page