Articles Posted in Montana

The law in Montana is that a medical malpractice plaintiff has the burden of proving through qualified, competent expert testimony what the alleged applicable standard of care is, how the alleged standard has been allegedly breached, and how the alleged breach has causally resulted in the alleged injuries.   This is the law in most jurisdictions.

Montana Medical Legal Panel Act

The Montana Medical Legal Panel Act (MMLP) requires a threshold review of malpractice claims against healthcare providers. Accordingly, medical negligence claims this Act must first submit the case to the Panel for consideration.

In this post, we will provide an overview of the law of personal injury in Montana. We will also provide summaries of recent jury verdicts and publicly reported settlements in Montana injury cases.

Montana 3-Year Statute of Limitations in Injury Cases

Like all states, Montana has a strict deadline for how long a plaintiff can wait before filing a civil lawsuit. This law is known as a statute of limitations. If the plaintiff does not file their case before the statute of limitations expires, they will lose their right to sue.

In an unreported opinion last month, the Supreme Court of Montana decided an appeal of an order granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of a doctor in Yellowstone County. The court found that the patient failed to present expert testimony that the doctor breached the standard of care in obtaining informed consent before performing surgery.

• Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in a birth injury case in 2023

Facts of Greene v. McDowell

The Montana Supreme Court decided Higgins v. Augustine yesterday. This lawsuit involved a dispute over whether a doctor had breached the standard of care during a circumcision.

The lawsuit alleged that the doctor was negligent in performing the procedure, causing the child to suffer an injury, and sought damages. The case went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the doctor. However, the plaintiff appealed the District Court’s decision to exclude specific evidence related to a witness’s expert testimony.

During the trial, the expert witness testified that the injury suffered by the child was not consistent with the use of the correct tools and suggested that the doctor may have used incorrect scissors or misused the correct scissors. However, the plaintiff had not adequately disclosed the witness’s opinion promptly, leading the defendant to move for its exclusion. The District Court agreed, and the plaintiff appealed this decision.