Cruz-Vázquez v. Mennonite General Hospital, Inc.

Hazel Cruz-Vázquez (plaintiff) sued Mennonite General Hospital, Inc. (the hospital) (defendant) and others (defendants) for medical malpractice, arguing that they had caused her daughter’s premature birth and death. Cruz-Vázquez tried to introduce testimony from Dr. Carlos Ramírez at trial. Ramírez had practiced as an obstetrician for almost 20 years, had been board certified a good portion of that time, and had taught obstetrics and gynecology part-time for 26 years. After receiving a cancer diagnosis, Ramírez stopped practicing medicine and began providing expert testimony in court cases, mostly for plaintiffs. The more times Ramírez testified for plaintiffs, the less likely a defendant was to hire him. Thus, Ramírez’s testimony experience was mostly for plaintiffs. Ramírez also started working with plaintiffs’ attorneys to present lectures on medical-malpractice issues. The hospital and the other parties named in Cruz-Vázquez’s lawsuit moved to exclude Ramírez from providing any testimony at trial. The trial court decided that Ramírez was biased in favor of all plaintiffs generally and excluded him from testifying. In its decision excluding him as an expert, the trial court did not identify any problem with the validity of Ramírez’s medical opinion or the basis of that opinion. Ramírez had been Cruz-Vázquez’s only expert witness. Without any admissible expert testimony available to help prove Cruz-Vázquez’s medical-malpractice claim, the trial court dismissed it. Cruz-Vázquez appealed.