 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Turbeville v. Wilson9/12/2005
McLean, Turbeville's own expert witness, stated "whether an NG-Tube should have been put in or not, that's debatable." He also opined this issue posed "a complex question," insinuating a lay jury would not be able to resolve the issue without the benefit of expert testimony. Reviewing the testimony and the issues involved in the case, the trial court determined that "lay jurors are not capable of understanding the complex medical issues that are the subject of this lawsuit." The court noted that the case involved complex medical questions including the purpose of NG-Tubes, when NG-Tubes should be used or removed, when NG-Tubes should be replaced, what measures should be taken when a patient's blood pressure drops, what measures must be taken when a patient vomits or becomes tachycardic, and when blood gas tests need to be performed.
We agree with the trial court. The issues considered in this medical malpractice action dealt with the diagnosis and treatment of an intensive care patient with numerous medical problems. The treatment of those medical problems required the expert knowledge of a physician trained in such areas. What treatments should have been utilized and when they should have been administered are not questions within the ambit of common knowledge. Accordingly, the common knowledge exception does not apply.
II. Dr. Wilson
Turbeville argues the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to Dr. Wilson because evidence through expert testimony and the common knowledge of laymen supported the allegation that Wilson's negligence caused the decedent's death. Turbeville also argues that Dr. Stewart was the agent of Dr. Wilson, and thus, Dr. Wilson is responsible for Dr. Stewart's negligence. We disagree.
A. Expert Testimony
Turbeville asserts that Dr. McLean's testimony supported an inference that Dr. Wilson was negligent in performing the corrective bowel surgery. He argues that Dr. McLean's testimony supported his allegation that the use of the Baker tubes was negligent. Thus, she argues, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment with regard to allegations concerning the surgery.
Dr. McLean testified regarding the use of a Baker tube during the surgery to prevent future bowel obstruction formations. Because the "benefits [were] so low in using a Baker tube and the risks [were] significant," Dr. McLean called into question Dr. Wilson's use of the procedure. However, he never stated that the use of the Baker's tube was a deviation from the standard of care expected of general surgeons. Furthermore, he testified "the Baker tube itself didn't cause [decedent's] death." In addition, because no tests were performed, Dr. McLean noted that " here's a lot that's unknown in this case."
Dr. McLean was unable to state to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the use of the Baker tube most probably resulted in any complications or proximately caused harm. Because there was no evidence that the use of the Baker tube deviated from the standard of care, Turbeville failed to establish through expert testimony that Dr. Wilson deviated from the standard of care in performing the decedent's surgery. Accordingly, we find no error with the trial court's grant of summary judgment as to the surgery.
B. Common Knowledge Exception
Citing Cox v. Lund, 286 S.C. 410, 334 S.E.2d 116 (1985), Turbeville argues that Dr. Wilson's own testimony showed that he could not properly view the decedent's bowel obstruction when he operated. Thus, she argues, a person of ordinary knowledge would realize that Dr. Wilson was negligent in performing the surgery.
In Cox, the defendant physici
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.
|
|