“In Mississippi, the success of a plaintiff in establishing a case of medical malpractice rests heavily on the shoulders of the plaintiff's selected medical expert.” Conn v. United States, 880 F.Supp.2d 741, 742 (S.D. Miss 2012) (cleaned up). Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony:
Simply mentioning titles of publications does not establish a standard. See, Conn v. United States, 880 F.Supp.2d 741, 747 (S.D. Miss. 2012)("Even if Dr. Strong had not failed to identify a specific Guideline publication, and even if he had not failed to identify a specific suggestion contained within such a publication, he still would have failed to state that the conduct recommended by the Guidelines marked the standard of care of a minimally competent physician); Baker v. Chevron USA, Inc., 680 F.Supp.2d 865, 878 (S.D.Ohio 2010) (concluding that expert report was inadequate in part because expert made no effort to connect the medical literature to expert's opinions)(Docket No. 201, pp. 3-4).Citing Thompson v. Doane Pet Care Co., 470 F.3d 1201, 1203 (6th Cir. 2006), plaintiffs take issue with this analysis (Docket No. 219, p. 11).
Thus, simply citing sources is insufficient. See, e.g., Conn v. United States, 880 F. Supp. 2d 741, 747 (S.D. Miss. 2012)("Even if Dr. Strong had not failed to identify a specific Guidelines publication, and ... not failed to identify a specific suggestion [...], he still would have failed to state that the conduct [...] [which] marked the standard of care of a minimally competent physician.") Finally, Plaintiffs cite the District Court case Casillas-Sanchez v. Ryder Memorial Hospital, Inc. to demonstrate that the fact that an expert did not include medical literature is insufficient to warrant exclusion of the expert's report and that an expert did testify as to a standard of care.
The Court agrees that these deficiencies in Sklaroff's report prevent it from creating a triable issue. See, e.g., Conn v. United States, 880 F.Supp.2d 741, 747 (S.D.Miss.2012) (granting summary judgmentin medical-malpractice case after finding expert report insufficient); Crosthwait v. S. Health Corp. of Houston, Inc., 94 So.3d 1070, 1074 (Miss.2012) (en banc) (“Where a plaintiff fails to present expert testimony as to the applicable standard of care, breach thereof, and proximate causation, summary judgment is mandated.” (citation omitted)).
Conn v. United States, 880 F.Supp.2d 741, 745 (S.D.Miss. 2012).
Id. at 179 (¶ 14) (emphasis in original). And in Conn v. United States , 880 F.Supp.2d 741 (S.D. Miss. 2012), the federal district court held that an expert's testimony as to what his own "professional recommendation ... would have been" failed to establish the requisite standard of care under Mississippi law. Id. at 744.