 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Aldridge v. Garner2/23/2005
vant to the lawsuit against Garner, we find that Dr. Kirwin's experience satisfies the purpose intended by the active-clinical-practice rule. Thus we find that, in this instance, the trial court's strict interpretation of the present-tense requirement contained in the rule is unreasonable.
{ } In its decision, the trial court made much of the fact that Dr. Kirwin testified that he had diagnosed only one case of lung cancer during his medical career. However, we find that this fact speaks to the weight that the trier of fact assigns to Dr. Kirwin's testimony, not his competency. Evid.R. 601 does not carry any requirement relating to the number of similar cases a physician expert has seen. Dr. Kirwin, like Garner, is a family practitioner. Thus, Dr. Kirwin's experience qualifies him to testify as to the standard of care expected of a reasonable family practitioner.
{ } Because we hold that Dr. Kirwin's experiential background renders him competent to testify in accordance with the purpose intended under Evid.R. 601(D)'s active-clinical-practice requirement, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding his testimony. Therefore, we sustain Aldridge's first assignment of error. Our resolution of Aldridge's first assignment of error renders her second assignment of error moot.
{ } Accordingly, we sustain Aldridge's first assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
ABELE, P.J., and GREY, J., concur.
LAWRENCE ANTHONY GREY, J., retired, of the Fourth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|