WARWICK — A cardiac specialist brought in by the family of Michael J. Woods told a Kent County jury Monday that if Kent Hospital’s emergency staff had met the standard of care expected of them, Woods most likely would not have died in the hospital’s emergency room July 26, 2006.

The witness, Dr. Jeffrey Garrett, a Pittsburgh cardiologist, told the jury that a patient with Woods’ symptoms — a sore throat and vomiting that came on suddenly— were serious enough warning signs that Woods should have been put on a cardiac monitor and treated with standard preventive medications.

“I believe there was a deviation from the standard of care,” Garrett said.

Kent Hospital is being sued by Woods’ estate, administered by his brother, actor James Woods, for negligence in connection with Michael Woods’ death from a blocked coronary artery.

In cross examination by hospital lawyer David W. Carroll, Garrett testified that while he had reviewed the medical records of Woods’ case, he had not reviewed depositions by many of the nurses and other staff that dealt with Woods.

Carroll said it was the staff, such as Dr. Kelli A. Naylor, who was treating Woods when he was stricken, who were there at the moment having to make important decisions without the benefit of hindsight.

“She was in the best position to judge,” Carroll said of Naylor. “It’s down in the pit where a doctor has to make the decisions.”

After testimony ended, and with the jury out of the room, the lawyer representing the Woods family, Mark B. Decof, asked Associate Justice Daniel A. Procaccini for a hearing on possible inappropriate contact with “several” jurors last week by a party he would not identify.

Procaccini agreed to let Decof have his hearing, possibly Wednesday afternoon, providing Decof could subpoena a witness he said he needed.

In his direct testimony, Garrett, a cardiologist since 1988, testified that had Woods been put on a monitor, it would have given Kent Hospital staff advance warning that his heart wasn’t getting enough blood.

Garrett was particularly critical of Naylor for not putting Woods on a cardiac monitor after 5:44 p.m., when an electrocardiogram test showed he had an abnormal heartbeat. At that point, Woods should have been admitted to the hospital, put on a cardiac monitor and a specialist called in, Garrett testified.

Woods should have then been given aspirin, which suppresses clotting and reduces the risk of a blockage of an already obstructed artery, and other anti-clotting medications, Garrett said. That would have stabilized Woods long enough to get him to Rhode Island Hospital or another facility equipped to do an angioplasty or stent operation to clear the coronary artery.

“I do not believe he would have died” had those things been done, Garrett said.

Garrett testified that when a doctor isn’t sure what is causing a patient’s symptoms, the doctor should figure out what the worst case could be — in Woods’ case, a potentially fatal heart condition — and act to defend against that, rather than wait for more tests.

In his turn at questioning, Carroll pressed Garrett that his assessment of the Kent staff and Woods’ condition was based on examining records. Under questioning by Carroll, Garrett testified that he had not read depositions by the admitting nurse, the nurse who watched over Woods for much of his stay in the emergency room that night or other staffers.

Garrett said that not having read after-the-fact statements by the participants didn’t affect the validity of his opinion.

jhill@projo.com