 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grenitz v. Tomlian6/5/2003
psychology, as distinct from psychology, is a highly specialized area that involves training in the fields of psychology and medicine. In this case, Barry Crown holds a Ph.D. and is the Head of Neuropsychology at Miami Children's Hospital. Moreover, Dr. Crown has twenty-nine years of academic and clinical experience in brain injury, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy. In Cruz, a 2000 decision, the neuropsychologist's study of the brain dated from 1964. The Fourth District detailed her expertise:
he was involved in considerable research and experimentation concerning the effects of various visual stimuli on the brain, the effects of gravity on the brain and the effects of other forces in the brain. She continued her study of neuropsychology, focusing primarily on fetal brain and spinal cord surgery. She taught neuro-ophthalmology, and served as a consultant in a major hospital to the departments of neurosurgery, neurology and endocrinology. She explained that her work frequently requires her to consult and work side by side with neurosurgeons, neuropathologists, neuroophthalmologists and neuroradiologists.
761 So. 2d at 395.
In this case, Dr. Crown's opinion was not being offered to establish whether there was a deviation from the medical standard of care. Dr. Crown was qualified to give and should have been able to give his opinion on the cause of Jacob's brain damage because that opinion was based on his background, training and experience, and the results of the testing that he performed. There was a solid basis for Dr. Crown's opinion as to how Jacob's brain damage occurred and why it was more likely that Jacob's brain damage occurred at birth rather than during an earlier stage of fetal development, as the defense contended.
Accordingly, although I agree with the majority's rejection of section 490.003(4), Florida Statutes, as support for the proposition that a neuropsychologist can testify to causation, I cannot agree with either the majority's categorical rule that a neuropsychologist can never testify as to the cause of brain damage or the majority's approval of the alleged conflict cases to the extent they adopt such a rule. See GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Bishop v. Baldwin Acoustical & Drywall, 696 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Thus, I would approve the Fourth District's opinion in full and its reasoning both in this case and in Cruz.
ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs.
WELLS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority's approval of the decisions in Bishop v. Baldwin Acoustical & Drywall, 696 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and GIW Southern Valve Co. v. Smith, 471 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). I also concur with the majority's holding that:
he record reflects that Dr. Crown, the plaintiff's expert neuropsychologist, did testify regarding [plaintiff-child] Jacob's standardized test results, and rendered an expert opinion that they reflected Jacob's organic brain damage. Thus, the neuropsychologist was permitted to testify with regard to the etiology (brain damage) of the behavior he evaluated. He should not have been permitted to testify as to the medical causation of the organic brain damage itself. . . . Contrary to the district court's decision, the trial court here did not err in disallowing the opinion testimony of someone other than a qualified physician as to the medical causation of Jacob's brain damage.
Majority op. at 7-8 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). However, I disagree with and dissent from the majority's decision to approve the result of the district court's decision, which reverses the trial court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Florida Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|