 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Turbeville v. Wilson9/12/2005
situations where the common knowledge or experience of laymen is extensive enough for them to recognize or infer "negligence on the part of the doctor and also to determine the presence of the required causal link between the doctor's actions and the patient's medical problems." Pederson v. Gould, 288 S.C. 141, 142, 341 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1986); Hickman v. Sexton Dental Clinic, P.A., 295 S.C. 164, 168, 367 S.E.2d 453, 455 (Ct. App. 1988).
Although physicians in one field of practice may testify as to the standard of care owed by a physician in another field of practice, the expert witness must profess knowledge of the applicable standard of care and provide a basis for having acquired that knowledge. See, e.g., Lee v. Suess, 318 S.C. 283, 286, 457 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1995) (holding a plastic surgeon could testify as to the standard of care owed by family practitioners because he stated his awareness of the standard of care and showed proof of acquiring that knowledge); Botehlo, 282 S.C. at 587, 320 S.E.2d at 65 (holding an orthopedic surgeon could not testify to the standard of care owed by a podiatrist because he admitted his unfamiliarity with the standard of care).
Dr. McLean admitted in his deposition that he was not competent to address the standard of care owed by an internist, such as Dr. Turner, or whether an internist deviated from that standard of care. Dr. McLean further testified that there was not anything Dr. Turner did or did not do that caused the decedent's death. Turbeville did not present any other expert testimony regarding the standard of care of an internist or whether Dr. Turner deviated from that standard. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Turbeville, no expert testimony was presented to support the allegation of medical malpractice against Dr. Turner. The trial court appropriately granted him summary judgment. Botehlo, 282 S.C. at 583, 320 S.E.2d at 62-63 (noting that on a defendant's motion for summary judgment, there will be no issue of material fact unless the plaintiff presented expert testimony of the standard of care and the breach of the standard by the defendant).
B. Common Knowledge Exception
Turbeville argues Dr. Turner's actions were such that a person of ordinary knowledge or experience could infer improper professional conduct so experts were not needed. Turbeville points to Dr. Turner's failure to reinsert the NG-Tube, failure to react to the decedent's drop in blood pressure, decision to prescribe Lasix, and failure to react to other symptoms exhibited by the decedent, as being issues within the ambit of common knowledge and experience of laypersons.
In discussing the common knowledge exception, this court has noted that:
Where the evidence permits the jury to recognize or infer a breach of duty without the aid of expert testimony, such testimony is not required in order for the case to go to the jury. The application of the common knowledge exception in proving negligence in a case involving medical malpractice depends on the particular facts of the case. When expert testimony is not required, the plaintiff must offer evidence that rises above mere speculation or conjecture. And, where the evidence permits the jury to recognize or infer a breach of duty without the aid of expert testimony, such testimony is not required for the case to go to the jury.
Hickman, 295 S.C. at 168, 367 S.E.2d at 455 (citations omitted).
Dr. Turner and various nurses who were in charge of the decedent on the day of his death testified regarding the decedent's symptoms, various medical treatments given to combat those symptoms, and the decedent's reaction to the treatments. Dr.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|