Brooke Amick, a patient with Quadriplegia, has been granted a new trial against neurosurgeon John Iskander, MD, after an Arizona appeals court ruled that a trial court excluded evidence that proved her surgeon’s alleged negligence led to her complete paralysis, according to an Aug. 16 report from Bloomberg Law.
The appeals court believes the trial court improperly applied Arizona's one-expert rule to exclude the testimony of a treating neurologist who evaluated Ms. Amick after the surgery, according to the report.
In 2017, Dr. Iskander performed a partial and total laminectomy to decompress Ms. Amick's spinal cord. After waking up, Ms. Amick was unable to move her extremities, according to court documents.
More than 12 hours after the surgery, Dr. Iskandar called in a second opinion from neurologist David Suber, MD. Dr. Suber ordered further imaging studies before Dr. Iskandar determined Ms. Amick was completely paralyzed.
Ms. Amick sought a second opinion from Udaya Kakarla, MD, who performed another complete laminectomy.
Ms. Amick then filed a lawsuit against Dr. Iskandar and Dr. Suber, later dropping Dr. Suber from the suit. During trial, the superior court precluded Ms. Amick's counsel from eliciting testimony from Dr. Suber. The appeals court has ruled that it was prejudicial to exclude Dr. Suber's testimony.
"In sum, the superior court erred by precluding Dr. Suber's additional testimony and evidence of Amick's second surgery. Those errors were prejudicial because the evidence excluded was relevant (each in multiple ways) to the claims and defenses in the case. We, therefore, vacate the judgment in favor of Dr. Iskandar and remand for a new trial," court documents read.