Lawrey v. Kearney Clinic, P.C., et al., No. 12-3863 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff's daughter was born with permanent nerve damage in her right shoulder and arm, plaintiff filed suit against the physician who performed the delivery of plaintiff's daughter. The court concluded that the proper standard for review of the district court's order granting the motion in limine is abuse of discretion, not plain error; the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of plaintiff's experts because the experts' opinions did not fit the specific facts of this case; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of informed consent where the record did not support the contention that the physician's expert testified the risk factors present in this case required a physician to warn a patient about the possibility of a permanent injury; and the court rejected plaintiff's contention that the district court should have granted her a new trial based on allegedly prejudicial and inflammatory comments made by defense counsel during closing arguments.
Court Description: Civil case - Medical Malpractice. Because the order limiting the testimony of plaintiff's experts was the subject of a definitive motion in limine, plaintiff's counsel was not required to make an offer of proof at trial to preserve a claim of error on appeal, and the proper standard of review of the district court's order granting the motion in limine is abuse of discretion, not plain error; the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion as the opinions offered by the experts did not fit the specific facts of the case; under the applicable medical guidelines, the risk factors present in the case did not require the defendant doctor to warn plaintiff about the possibility of permanent damage from a vaginal delivery; claims that comments made during defense counsel's closing argument required a new trial rejected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.