Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintifftrialtestimonymalpracticeexpert witness

plaintiffdepositionnegligencetrialtestimonymalpracticewillexpert witness

Related Cases

Glover v. Ballhagen, 232 Mont. 427, 756 P.2d 1166

Facts

The case arose from a medical malpractice lawsuit against a board certified family practitioner in Ronan, Montana. The plaintiff intended to use as expert witnesses a board certified orthopedic surgeon and a board certified internal medicine specialist from Oregon, neither of whom had knowledge of the standard of care in Ronan. The United States District Court certified questions to the Montana Supreme Court regarding the qualifications required for expert witnesses in this context.

A board certified family practitioner practicing in Ronan, Montana, is sued for malpractice. The depositions indicate that the plaintiff intends to use as experts, a board certified orthopod and a board certified practitioner of internal medicine and infectious diseases.

Issue

1. In order to qualify as an expert witness on the standard of care required of a board certified family practitioner, must the witness be a board certified family practitioner? 2. If not, then who may qualify as an expert to testify on the standard of care required of a board certified family practitioner?

In order to qualify as an expert witness on the standard of care required of a board certified family practitioner, must the witness be a board certified family practitioner?

Rule

The standard of care for a board certified family practitioner is defined by the skill and learning possessed by other doctors in good standing practicing with the same national board certification. An expert witness does not have to be a board certified family practitioner but must possess the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify on the standard of care.

Rule 702, M.R.Evid ., pertains to testimony by experts. That rule provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Analysis

The court analyzed the qualifications of expert witnesses in light of the established standard of care for board certified family practitioners. It referenced previous cases, particularly Aasheim v. Humberger, to clarify that while the standard of care is based on the skills of similarly certified practitioners, it does not restrict expert testimony solely to those with the same certification. The court emphasized the trial court's discretion in determining the qualifications of expert witnesses based on their knowledge and experience.

We held that the instruction given by the court was unduly restrictive in that it applied the “same or similar” locality rule to a board certified orthopedic surgeon.

Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court concluded that an expert witness may qualify to testify on the standard of care required of a board certified family practitioner without being a board certified family practitioner themselves. The court affirmed the trial court's discretion in determining expert qualifications.

We answer the first certified question in the negative. In order to qualify as an expert witness on the standard of medical care required of a board certified family practitioner, the witness may be, but does not have to be, a board certified family practitioner.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the plaintiff, as the court ruled that the qualifications for expert witnesses were broader than just requiring board certification in family practice.

The party presenting a witness as an expert must establish, to the satisfaction of the trial court, that the witness possesses the requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify as to the diagnosis and treatment in question and as to the standard of care applicable to the physician charged with negligence.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Siwa v. Koch, 388 Ill.App.3d 444, 902 N.E.2d 1173, 327 Ill.Dec. 787

Travers v. District of Columbia, 672 A.2d 566

Hickey v. Travelers Ins. Co., 158 A.D.2d 112, 558 N.Y.S.2d 554

Parris v. Limes, 277 P.3d 1259, 2012 OK 18

White v. Harris, 190 Vt. 647, 36 A.3d 203, 2011 VT 115