 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Spangler v. East Tennessee Baptist Hospital2/28/2000
In this action for medical malpractice, the Trial Judge granted all defendants summary judgments, after ruling that plaintiffs' expert was not qualified to testify as a medical expert witness in this case.
Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, along with supporting affidavits which stated that defendants did not deviate from the applicable standard of care in their treatment of Marjorie Spangler.
In response to the motion, plaintiffs presented a Dr. DiBianco from Washington, D.C. as an expert witness, who opined that all of the defendants had deviated from the appropriate standard of care, which caused plaintiff's injuries.
Dr. DiBianco's affidavit stated as follows:
. . .all medical standards, which form the basis of my opinions, are not standards which vary from community to community. Unless otherwise indicated, the opinions expressed in this affidavit are based upon a standard of care which involves certain basic medical issues which would not be dependent upon the degree of sophistication, medical equipment, facilities, or medical practice in a particular community. To the extent that there are any medical standards which may be subject to variation from community to community, those have been determined by specific reference to the medical practices in this case in order to determine an appropriate local standard of care.
The Trial Court ruled that Dr. DiBianco should not testify as an expert witness because he was not familiar with the applicable standard of care for the defendants in the community in which they practice or a similar community, and had not otherwise satisfied the evidentiary standards of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06 and Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-115.
Plaintiffs then filed a Motion Pursuant to T.R.C.P. Rule 59, and attached a supplemental affidavit of Dr. DiBianco. In the supplemental affidavit, Dr. DiBianco simply states that he is "familiar with the recognized standard of acceptable professional practice for the defendant health care providers in the community in which the defendant health care providers practice or in a similar community," which is conclusionary and simply tracks the language of Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-115. Dr. DiBianco's supplemental affidavit does not provide any substantive factual basis for this claimed knowledge. In overruling the motion, the Trial Judge said that he had considered the supplemental affidavit, but concluded it was legally insufficient and reaffirmed his order granting summary judgment to defendants.
Plaintiffs insist that the Trial Court was in error in refusing to admit Dr. DiBianco's affidavits.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that malpractice actions deal with matters not within the common knowledge of lay persons, and expert testimony is required. Bowman v. Henard, 547 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. 1977.) Tenn. Code Ann. §29-26-115 requires that a plaintiff in a malpractice action prove that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care in the community in which he practices or a similar community, which the Supreme Court has described as a "broadened definition of the geographic component." Sutphin v. Platt, 720 S.W.2d 455 (Tenn. 1986). Thus, plaintiffs were required to provide expert testimony that defendants failed to comply with the proper standard of care in Knoxville or a similar community, by an expert who is familiar with that standard of care.
In this case, plaintiffs' expert claimed to be familiar with the standard of care in Knoxville, because he felt the standard of care did not vary from community to community. He presented no other factual basis for his belief that he was familiar with the local st
Page 1 2 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|