Mario Mancini, who has been incarcerated since 2002, has served his prison term at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota (FCI Sandstone) since 2014. In the 1990s, prior to his incarceration, Mancini sustained a workplace injury. He has since endured consequent neck and back pain. Prior to his incarceration at FCI Sandstone, Mancini underwent a CT scan in 2010 that showed mild to moderate cervical spondylosis with multilevel disc degeneration and suspected osteophyte disc complexes. In 2014, Mancini reported a twinge in his neck causing pain and numbness in his right arm and fingers.
On June 30, 2017, Mancini reported that he had reaggravated his neck injury while lifting a box. The nurse observed that Mancini was experiencing the same symptoms he had in the past, such as numbness, tingling, and pain radiating from the neck into the arm and fingers. Additionally, she noted that Mancini experienced no loss of function or strength. Mancini received pain medication. The following day, July 1, Mancini again complained of pain. He was given enough ibuprofen to get through the holiday weekend. On July 2, Mancini reported increasing pain and numbness in his hand. On July 5, Dr. Thomas Mayer and physician’s assistant (PA) Jenefer Southwick each examined Mancini; they each noted pain and numbness but no weakness. On July 20, Dr. Mayer again examined Mancini. Dr. Mayer recorded, for the first time, that Mancini was experiencing weakness in his right arm; however, Dr. Mayer mentioned in his notes that tricep weakness was “first noted 2–3 weeks ago at onset of current episode.” Dr. Mayer ordered an urgent MRI with a target date of July 31, 2017.
On August 7, 2017, Mancini underwent an MRI. It showed little change from the 2010 CT scan. The MRI results reported “[n]o cord compression or abnormal cord signal.” FCI Sandstone’s Acting Clinical Director, Dr. Paul Harvey, recommended that Mancini consult with a neurosurgeon within 30 to 60 days. On August 29, Mancini consulted with neurosurgeon Dr. Steven Broadway. Dr. Broadway recommended that Mancini undergo an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Dr. Broadway informed Mancini of the risks, including damage to the nerves and spinal cord. Mancini agreed to the surgery. Because “no timeline was recommended” in the initial consult report, PA Southwick called Dr. Broadway’s office to obtain a “more direct schedule for surgery.” Dr. Broadway amended the consultation report with the recommendation that surgery be performed within 60 days—by October 30, 2017. Dr. Harvey approved the surgery to be performed within 90 days or on the first available date.
Mancini’s surgery was scheduled for October 18, 2017. Per Health Services’ standard procedure, Mancini was to be placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) to ensure he did not eat for 12 hours prior to surgery. But a Health Services Assistant sent an email containing the wrong date to the staff members responsible for placing inmates in the SHU. As a result, Mancini was allowed to eat before the surgery. Consequently, the surgery was rescheduled and performed on November 27, 2017. On December 13, 2017, Dr. Mayer noted weakness and atrophy in Mancini’s right triceps. Following the surgery, Mancini experienced a loss of strength and continued pain and numbness.
Mancini sued the government and several other entities and individuals, alleging state law medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and constitutional violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The district court dismissed all but the FTCA claim against the government. In support of his medical malpractice claim, Mancini submitted an initial expert-disclosure affidavit by Dr. Tanzid Shams. See Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Dr. Shams’s expert affidavit failed to meet the standards required under Minnesota law governing medical malpractice claims. Mancini obtained a new expert affidavit from Dr. Gary Wyard, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and the government withdrew its motion.
The government moved for summary judgment and to exclude Dr. Wyard’s expert testimony. The government argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Mancini was unable to prove an essential element of his case. According to the government, “[p]laintiff’s supplemental expert-disclosure affidavit fails to meet the substantive requirements of Minnesota law; and second, the opinions in that disclosure are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Without expert testimony, [p]laintiff cannot prove his medical malpractice claim as a matter of law.”
Based on the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the district court exclude Dr. Wyard’s affidavit “under Rule 702 and Daubert,” and because “an expert affidavit is an essential element of a medical malpractice case in Minnesota,” the magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the government’s summary-judgment motion. Alternatively, the magistrate judge recommended that even if the district court did not exclude the expert testimony, it should still dismiss the case because of Mancini’s failure to comply with Minn. Stat. § 145.682.
The district court alternatively concluded that even if Dr. Wyard’s opinions satisfied Minnesota law, they would not be admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert. First, the district court determined that Dr. Wyard’s affidavit contained factual errors and contradictions to the record. Second, the district court concluded that Dr. Wyard failed to “identify the ‘principles or methods’—or the application of those principles and methods—he used to evaluate Mr. Mancini’s condition.” Dr. Wyard stated only that the defendant breached a duty of care and that the breach caused injuries; he did not identify the standard of care or describe how or why delays in treatment caused Mancini’s present injuries. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge that Dr. Wyard’s expert opinion was not admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert. It granted the government’s motion to exclude Dr. Wyard’s expert opinion.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated in its April 18, 2025 decision: “Our review of the record reveals that all prerequisites for dismissal of the action under § 145.682, subdiv. 6(c), were satisfied in this case. The government moved for summary judgment on July 24, 2023. R. Doc. 175. In that motion, it identified the claimed deficiencies in Dr. Wyard’s affidavit. The hearing on the motion occurred 45 days later on September 7, 2023. R. Doc. 187. Prior to the hearing, Mancini did not serve upon the government an amended affidavit to correct the claimed deficiencies. Thus, he failed to take advantage of the statute’s “safe-harbor provision,” which contains the “requirement that the plaintiff be given 45 days to cure the claimed deficiencies before dismissal is mandatory” … Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”
Source Mancini v. v. United States of America, No. 24-1464.
If you or a loved one suffered harm as a result of medical malpractice involving a federal medical facility or involving a federal employee, you should promptly find a federal medical malpractice lawyer (Federal Tort Claims Act lawyer) who may investigate your federal medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a Federal Tort Claims Act medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find FTCA medical malpractice attorneys in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
