Barbee v. Finerty1/30/1995
he statute. As noted in Bruni, 46 Ohio St.2d at 130, 75 O.O.2d at 186, 346 N.E.2d at 673, " he issue as to whether the physician and surgeon has proceeded in the treatment of a patient with the requisite standard of care and skill must ordinarily be determined from the testimony of medical experts."
The appellant's attempt to link the appellee's alleged deviation from the scope of practice with the definitional practice statute, R.C. 4731.51, without attendant expert testimony, does not establish a prima facie case of medical negligence. See, e.g., Berdyck v. Shinde (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 5731 579-581, 613 N.E.2d 1014, 1021-1022, (while the definition of the practice of nursing is set forth by R.C. 4723.02 , in a negligence action involving the professional skill and judgment of a nurse, expert testimony must be presented); Willett v. Rowekamp (1938), 134 Ohio St. 285, 286-287, 12 O.O. 91, 91-92, 16 N.E.2d 457,
458-459: ("While a failure to comply with the registration statute might subject the defendant to a criminal prosecution, such failure, coupled with a showing of treatment given, is not in itself sufficient on which to base a charge of malpractice.").
This medical negligence action involves the professional skill and judgment of the appellee. The appellant did not produce expert testimony demonstrating that the appellee proceeded in the treatment of the appellant; rather, the appellant merely points to the broadly written practice statute, R.C. 4731.51, expecting a layperson to discern whether the appellee's conduct constituted treatment. Under Bruni and its progeny, expert testimony is required to demonstrate that the doctor proceeded in the treatment of a patient.
In this case, the appellant's expert testimony established only the standard of care for a medical doctor, not a podiatrist. While a medical doctor is qualified to give the applicable standard of care of a podiatrist, see, e.g., Alexander v. Mt. Carmel filed Ctr. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 155, 10 O.O.3d 332, 383 N.E.2d 564; King v. LaKamp (1988), 50 Ohio App.3d 84, 553 N.E.2d 701, Dr. Tachdjian readily admitted during his deposition that he had no knowledge of the applicable standard of care for podiatrists, nor even any knowledge of the minimum accepted procedures of diagnosis and treatment for podiatrists. Consequently, Dr. Tachdjian's lack of knowledge of the standards of podiatry precludes him from testifying as to the appellee's conformity with the standard of care of a podiatrist, or even whether the appellee did in fact treat the appellant. See Alexander v. Mt. Carmel, 56 Ohio St.2d at 160, 10 O.O.3d at 334-335, 383 N.E.2d at 567.
The affidavits submitted by the appellee attested to the requisite standard of care of a podiatrist, and stated that the appellee's examination of the appellant was performed in accordance with proper and accepted standards of pediatric care. Given the appellant's complete lack of pertinent expert testimony, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee. See Hoffman v. Davidson, 31 Ohio St.3d at 62, 31 OBR at 167-168, 508 N.E.2d at 960-961.
The appellant's three assignments of error are overruled.
Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
SHAW, P.J., and BRYANT, J., concur.
_____________________ Footnote:
1 The Bryan Medical Group, Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from this action on June 24, 1994.
|