Hall v. Flannery
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
840 F.3d 922 (2016)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
At age 17, Chelsea Weekley had cranioplasty surgery to fix an old skull fracture. Several days later, she died. On behalf of Weekley’s estate, Weekley’s mother, Sarah Hall (plaintiff), sued Dr. Ann Flannery and others (the providers) (defendants) in federal district court for medical malpractice. Hall alleged that Weekley died of a seizure due to the providers’ negligent failure to prescribe postsurgery antiseizure medication. The providers claimed Weekley had not had a seizure and likely died from a heart ailment. At trial, the providers presented three expert witnesses, including Dr. John Ruge, a pediatric neurologist. Ruge had practiced pediatric neurosurgery for 25 years, had operated on skull fractures similar to Weekley’s, held numerous professional certifications and affiliations, had published articles on epilepsy and head injuries, and was the chief of pediatric neurosurgery for a large health system. At trial, Ruge gave an opinion that Weekley had not died of a seizure. Ruge based this opinion on his review of Weekley’s autopsy, medical records, other case evidence, and his specialized experience and knowledge. Ruge also gave an opinion that Weekley had likely died of focal interstitial chronic inflammation, a heart condition. Ruge did not have any specialized training in cardiology or specific knowledge about this condition. Indeed, Ruge admitted that when he first saw the condition’s name, he looked up its meaning. Ruge then researched the condition and, based on that research, concluded it was the most likely cause of Weekley’s death. The jury found that the providers had not committed malpractice, and the court entered judgment in their favor. Hall appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Among other arguments, Hall claimed the district court should have excluded Ruge’s opinions because he was not qualified to provide expert opinions on those subjects.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


