In a significant ruling, the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals has decided that expert witnesses can testify remotely in medical malpractice cases. This decision, made on June 29, 2026, affects the ongoing case involving the estate of Gladys Carattini Santiago and the Mennonite General Hospital, along with Dr. Wilberto Santiago Reyes. The court's ruling is crucial as it addresses access to justice and the challenges faced by plaintiffs in securing expert testimony.
The case began when Gladys Carattini Santiago and her husband, Oscar Camacho Serrano, filed a lawsuit against the Mennonite General Hospital, alleging medical malpractice. Carattini Santiago had visited the hospital in September 2021 with severe abdominal pain. After being misdiagnosed by Dr. Santiago Reyes, she returned nearly a year later to find that she had a large abscess and metastatic cancer. Tragically, she passed away due to the late diagnosis. Following her death, her estate continued the lawsuit, seeking justice for the alleged negligence.
The dispute escalated when the estate sought to have their expert witness, Dr. Alexander Toledo, testify via videoconference from Arizona. The lower court initially denied this request, stating that in-person testimony was preferable for assessing credibility and ensuring a fair trial. The estate argued that the costs of bringing the expert to Puerto Rico were prohibitively high, which could hinder their access to justice.
The appeals court, led by Judge Adames Soto, reviewed the lower court's decision and found that it had abused its discretion. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the right to confront witnesses with the practicalities of litigation costs. In its ruling, the court stated, "the solution more just in this case was to allow the testimony of the petitioner's expert via videoconference." This decision allows the estate to present its expert's testimony remotely, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
This ruling is significant as it highlights the ongoing challenges faced by plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, especially in jurisdictions like Puerto Rico where expert witnesses may be located far away. The court recognized that requiring in-person testimony could impose an undue burden on plaintiffs, particularly in cases where expert testimony is essential to establish negligence.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the current case. It may encourage other courts to adopt similar policies regarding remote testimony, especially as technology continues to advance. The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that plaintiffs have access to the necessary resources to pursue their claims effectively.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the defendants in this case will seek to appeal the ruling. The court has emphasized the need for a fair trial while also considering the practical realities of litigation. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may pave the way for more flexible approaches to expert testimony in the future.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases pending.