Court tosses another medical malpractice victim's expert testimony and case

William Roye sued Dr. Paul Ehrmann, D.O., after Ehrmann failed to refer him for a biopsy on a facial lesion.  Roye argued that the 2 cm x 2 cm lesion examined by Ehrmann should have been referred to a dermatologist immediately, and that the delay in treatment resulted in the disfiguring removal of 8 cm of tissue.  Roye provided the testimony of another Family Practitioner who testified that Roye should have been referred for immediate treatment, and that in his experience, no more extensive treatment would have been necessary.

The defendant's insurance counsel marshaled the testimony of Roye's treaters and an expert behind the argument that Roye's lesion required extensive repair which was unaffected by a delay that amounted only to 60 days.  On the basis of the latter testimony, the Court held that Roye's proffered expert testimony on causation was inadmissible and his case was summarily dismissed.  The Court of Appeals upheld this outcome.