 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GOODING v. ST. FRANCIS XAVIER HOSP.6/2/1997
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hospital, 317 S.C. 320,
FACTS
Respondent (Gooding) brought this him for surgery. At trial, Gooding moved to qualify Ralph Sorensen, Jr., an emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic, as an expert in intubation. Hospital and Dr. Hood objected to qualifying Sorensen as an expert in intubation because Sorensen was not an anesthesiologist.
Outside the presence of the jury, Sorensen testified he was a certified paramedic and EMT, had intubated over one hundred patients, and instructs and tests physicians on intubation and extubation procedures. In explaining the proper procedure for intubating a patient, he testified the greatest risk during intubation is the fracturing of the front two teeth.
The trial judge ruled Sorensen was not qualified to testify as
an expert witness. The trial judge specified:
. . the necessary requirement for expert testimony,
and particularly in malpractice cases, is of such a
nature that the witness must have special expertise
by way of training to compare with that of the
physician who is defending the charges. In this case,
even though the witness is somewhat trained in the
mechanics of this medical assistance, he is not a
medical doctor; he does not have the medical expertise
required to testify under the circumstances of this
case.
Gooding then proffered Sorensen's substantive testimony by introducing a videotape of Sorensen demonstrating, on a mannequin, the proper performance of intubation. During this videotape, Sorensen stated that medical personnel performing intubation sometimes use the teeth as a fulcrum because 1) they are not strong enough to lift the patient's tongue and epiglottis to expose the trachea, 2) they have an improper technique, 3) the patient's head is at a bad angle, or 4) the
The Court of Appeals held the trial judge should have qualified Sorensen as an expert witness in intubation. Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that Sorensen's testimony was necessary for Gooding to establish that Dr. Hood deviated from the standard of care. Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that Sorensen's videotape demonstrating intubation procedures presented circumstantial evidence of how and when Gooding's teeth were chipped.
ISSUES
I. Did the Court of Appeals err by concluding the
trial judge should have qualified Sorensen as an
expert witness in the area of intubation?
II. Did the Court of Appeals err by concluding
Sorensen's testimony presented evidence of Dr. Hood's
deviation from the standard of care?
DISCUSSION
I.
Hospital and Dr. Hood argue that the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that Sorensen was qualified to testify as an expert witness because he was not familiar with the standard of care of anesthesiologists. We disagree.
The qualification of an expert witness and the admissibility of the expert's testimony are matters within the trial court's discretion. McGee v. Bruce Hospital System, 321 S.C. 340, 468 S.E.2d 633 (1996); Creed v. City of Columbia, 310 S.C. 342, 426 S.E.2d 785 (1993). An abuse of discretion occurs when there is an error of law or a factual conclusion which is without evidentiary support. Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 457 S.E.2d 344 (1995).
To be competent to testify as an expert, "a witness must have acquired by reason of study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that he is
" n expert is not limited to any class of persons acting professionally." Bothelo v.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|