Appeals court weighs sufficiency of expert offer of proof in fatal hospital fall case

Summary

Appellant contends medical records and an expert opinion show the decedent was high fall risk and that monitoring (bed alarm, tele-sitter) was inadequate; defense cites precedent and argues the expert failed to identify individual defendants or applicable standards of care, so tribunal dismissal should stand.

Michael Rabia, representing the Mendoza family, told the panel that medical records show Barry Mendoza was admitted at high risk of falling and that safety measures including frequent toileting and tele-sitter monitoring were indicated but not adequately implemented. "He was diagnosed at high risk of fall," Rabia said, pointing to risk scores in hospital records.

Rabia argued that at the offer-of-proof stage the tribunal should consider whether any combination of the record and expert opinion could support an inference for the plaintiff and that discovery would then identify the responsible individual providers. Defense counsel pointed to recent controlling precedent (Dos Santos) and argued the expert's letter did not identify individual defendants, did not specify the applicable standard of care for each provider, and did not connect alleged breaches to particular provider conduct.

The panel probed the record and whether redactions tied to peer-review privilege altered the opinion's usefulness. Judges questioned whether the offer of proof met the statute's screening threshold and whether further discovery would be allowed. The case was submitted after argument.