 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coe v. Wardle7/31/2000
s that a practitioner of one school of medicine is not competent to testify as an expert in a malpractice action against a practitioner of another school of medicine.' However, Washington courts recognize an exception to this rule when the methods of treatment of the two schools are or should be the same. A trial court's ruling regarding competence of an expert to testify will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse of discretion.
Dr. Hansen's affidavit fails to affirmatively demonstrate that he is competent to testify regarding the standard of care for a podiatrist. The affidavit states only that Dr. Hansen is a professor at the University of Washington, Department of Orthopaedics and Chief Orthopaedic Surgeon at Harborview Medical Center's Foot, Ankle & Amputee Clinic. While Dr. Hansen's job titles suggest that he is a learned expert in the field of orthopedics, there is nothing in the affidavit which would affirmatively demonstrate his familiarity with the school of podiatry. Coe asserts that Dr. Hansen's curriculum vitae clearly cements the foundation of his expertise in both podiatry and orthopedics, but we cannot review the veracity of her claim because that document is not in the record. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Dr. Hansen's affidavit did not constitute competent expert testimony.
Coe also argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because the affidavit of Dr. Hansen clearly shows by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Wardle failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and learning possessed at that time by other persons in the same profession, and that Coe suffered damages as a proximate result of such failure. In support of this claim, Coe cites the following passages from Dr. Hansen's affidavit: {T}here is usually some reason when previous surgery continues to fail, and that is failure to deal with the primary cause of the problem or underlying cause. I believe that Dr. Wardle failed to deal with Ms. Coe's underlying foot problems and that is why Ms. Coe continues to suffer pain and discomfort and will require additional surgery to correct and perform the procedures which should have been performed in the first place.
Coe also contends that Dr. Hansen's affidavit established that Dr. Wardle violated the standard of care for podiatrists in Washington:
It has been common practice in both the orthopaedic and podiatry communities for many years to do what I call compensating operations. These are operations which tend to get rid of the visible deformity in the toe, but do not deal with the underlying problem. This patient has had that kind of treatment. . . . Lengthening the gastrocnemius or heel cord and correcting the alignment and stability of the first metatarsal have become standard procedures in both the podiatric and orthopaedic communities in this region over the past 15 years. These procedures are well enough established in this community, that I think given this patient's clinical finding, the level of care which she has had does indeed fall below standards. Ms. Coe now requires rather extensive reconstructive surgery. . . . In addition, she will need some other procedures in order to deal with the ongoing or continuing deterioration of her foot.
Dr. Wardle argues that Dr. Hansen's affidavit does not meet the statutorily mandated standard of proof for medical malpractice. We agree. Under Washington's statutorily mandated standard of care for health care providers, the plaintiff must prove that '{t}he health care provider failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent health care provider at that time in the profession or class to which he belongs,
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|