 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Farver v. Carpenter6/23/2000
e standard of care, and because his testimony did not clearly indicated otherwise, the Trial Court should have allowed his testimony. As in Carmichael, Dr. Patterson's affirmative statement that he is familiar with the standard of care in East Tennessee does not make his testimony relevant and admissible.
While the continuing necessity for the locality rule may be open to argument, what is not open to argument is the current state of the law in Tennessee. For better or worse, the Tennessee Legislature has determined the locality rule is appropriate in medical malpractice cases. I believe this threshold requirement of familiarity by Dr. Patterson with the acceptable standard of care in Knoxville or a similar community was not met, and that Defendant made proper objection to Dr. Patterson's testimony being submitted to the jury. I would hold that it was error by the Trial Court to permit Dr. Patterson's opinion testimony to be presented to and considered by the jury. Without Dr. Patterson's testimony, there is no material evidence in the record to support the verdict. However, had the Trial Court excluded Dr. Patterson's testimony, Plaintiff would have had the option of taking a voluntary dismissal and refiling her lawsuit or perhaps presenting additional expert testimony. Because of this, I believe the appropriate remedy in this Court would be to vacate the judgment and remand this matter for a new trial.
|