On December 6, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court convened to hear the case of Lorraine Bellmar, personal representative v. Robert Moore & another, SJC-13643. The proceedings focused on allegations of medical negligence related to the treatment of Mr. Bellmar, who passed away from cardiac arrest.

The session began with expert testimony regarding the standard of care expected from Dr. Moore, the internist responsible for Mr. Bellmar's health from 2006 to 2016. A key point raised was the failure to conduct an EKG, which the expert witness asserted was a critical oversight given Mr. Bellmar's significant health risks, including obesity, hypertension, and sleep apnea. The expert opined that had Dr. Moore performed the necessary evaluations and treatments, Mr. Bellmar's death could have been preventable.

The discussion highlighted that Mr. Bellmar's heart weighed 800 grams at the time of his death, significantly larger than the normal size of approximately 300 grams. This detail underscored the severity of his condition and the necessity for ongoing cardiac assessments. The expert emphasized that Mr. Bellmar had visited Dr. Moore multiple times over a decade without receiving appropriate cardiac follow-up, which constituted a breach of the standard of care.

Defense attorney Stephen O'Shea argued that the absence of an EKG was not the sole factor in determining negligence. He contended that even if Mr. Bellmar had a normal EKG in 2006, his underlying risk factors still warranted further testing. However, the expert maintained that the cumulative evidence of Mr. Bellmar's health status over the years clearly indicated a need for proactive cardiac management.

The court's deliberations centered on whether the failure to act on these medical indicators constituted negligence and if the case should proceed to a jury for further consideration. The expert's testimony was pivotal in establishing a timeline of missed opportunities for intervention that could have altered the outcome for Mr. Bellmar.

As the hearing concluded, the justices were tasked with determining the implications of the evidence presented and the potential for a jury to assess the claims of negligence against Dr. Moore. The case underscores the critical importance of adhering to medical standards of care, particularly in patients with multiple risk factors for serious health conditions.