Title: Collom v. Pierson

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

411 N.W.2d 92 (1987) Sheri L. COLLOM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. R.W. PIERSON, M.D., Defendant, and Dennis J. Lutz, M.D., Defendant and Appellee. Civ. No. 11428. Supreme Court of North Dakota. August 20, 1987. *93 Frederick E. Saefke, Jr., Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellant. Zuger & Bucklin, Bismarck, for defendant. Zuger, Kapsner & Blazer, Bismarck, for defendant and appellee; argued by William P. Zuger. MESCHKE, Justice. Sheri Collom sued Dr. R.W. Pierson and Dr. Dennis J. Lutz for medical malpractice. Answering special verdict questions, the jury decided that the doctors were not negligent. Collom appeals as to Dr. Lutz only, claiming that his medical expert was not qualified to testify. We affirm. On November 7, 1972, Collom came to the emergency room of Trinity Medical Center in Minot, complaining of pain in her pelvic area. Dr. Pierson examined her and discovered a pelvic mass. Dr. Pierson consulted Dr. Lutz, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, who recommended exploratory surgery. During surgery, on November 9, 1982, Dr. Lutz removed Collom's right fallopian tube which had a cyst and an infected mass. He also did an incidental appendectomy. During the next ten days, Collom had intermittent fevers and bouts of severe abdominal pain and distension, constipation, diarrhea and vomiting. On the fifth day, pus began to drain from Collom's surgical wound. Collom was released from the hospital on November 20. Her condition worsened and on November 25 she returned, complaining of pain and shortness of breath. Collom was promptly moved to a hospital at Minneapolis, where a test indicated an opening in her lower colon. On November 26, 1982, Dr. Leonard Schultz operated and found a perfectly round hole, one centimeter in diameter, in Collom's colon, together with extensive infection in her abdomen. Dr. Schultz performed a diverting colostomy to drain her colon and thus to promote healing. From December 1982 to May 1985, Collom was hospitalized fifteen times for examinations, tests, and three more surgeries to clear up her ailments. She sued Dr. Lutz, Dr. Pierson and Trinity for malpractice. Trinity was dropped from the suit before trial. At trial, Collom sought to prove that Dr. Lutz carelessly caused the opening during surgery or that he did not properly diagnose and treat the condition which caused the opening. Dr. Lutz defended on the theory that the opening occurred after surgery and that his post-surgical treatment was proper. The sole medical expert for Dr. Lutz was Dr. M. Michael Eisenberg, a general surgeon from New York with expertise in *94 gastroenterology, a specialty in disorders of the digestive system. Testifying by video-deposition, Dr. Eisenberg opined that the opening in Collom's colon could not have been more than three days old on November 26, so that it could not have occurred during Dr. Lutz's surgery, seventeen days earlier. Dr. Eisenberg testified that, while the cause of the opening could not be ascertained, Collom had a preexisting bowel disease which contributed to her condition and that the opening could have been made by tubes inserted in her rectum for enemas after Dr. Lutz's surgery. Dr. Eisenberg also testified about proper treatment of an infection like Collom's. During taking of the deposition, counsel for Collom objected to the concluding question by counsel for Dr. Lutz: At trial, Collom sought to exclude all of Dr. Eisenberg's testimony. Her position was that "there is no showing in his deposition testimony of his familiarity with the practice of obstetrics and gynecology nor the similar localities nor similar circumstances to qualify him to testify on the practice of Dr. Lutz in North Dakota." The trial court allowed the evidentiary use of Dr. Eisenberg's deposition: The jury determined that the doctors were not negligent. Appellant Collom seeks a new trial against Dr. Lutz, claiming *95 that the evidentiary use of Dr. Eisenberg's testimony was error because he was not qualified to testify as an expert in this case. Dr. Lutz suggests that since Collom "failed to preserve a proper foundational objection in the deposition ... for lack of specificity," her appellate challenge should not be considered. NDRCivP Rule 32 regulates use of depositions. Generally, "any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used" when authorized under Rule 32(a). Rule 32(b) specifically deals with "Objections to Admissibility": Subdivision (d)(3) of Rule 32, dealing with the "Effect of Errors and Irregularities in Depositions," particularly "as to Taking of Depositions," states: Objections to foundation can frequently be obviated by further testimony. Therefore, an objection to foundation at a deposition is futile unless it is sufficiently specific to afford the opposing party opportunity to cure it. See United States v. Michaels, 726 F.2d 1307, 1314 (8th Cir. 1984): "Foundation objections require specificity." Collom's counsel failed to specify what was lacking. Therefore, we cannot consider Collom's deposition objection to foundation for any of Dr. Eisenberg's testimony. At trial, Collom made a broad attack on Dr. Eisenberg's qualifications. Counsel for Dr. Lutz fully developed Dr. Eisenberg's education and experience in the deposition, and does not suggest that anything more could have been added. Therefore, we approach this appeal as arising from an "objection... to the competency ... of testimony... not waived by failure to make [it]... during the taking of the deposition." NDRCivP Rule 32(d)(3)(A). Most of Dr. Eisenberg's testimony dealt with time of occurrence and causes of the opening in Collom's colon. As an experienced surgeon specializing in gastroenterology, Dr. Eisenberg was clearly "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" to so testify. See NDREv Rule 702. And, under NDREv Rule 703, he could base this opinion on records documenting discovery of the opening. See the Notes of Advisory Committee to FedREv Rule 703, from which our Rule 703 was derived. In State v. Fontaine, 382 N.W.2d 374, 377 (N.D. 1986), we said: But, quoting from many medical malpractice decisions by this court, Collom insists evidentiary rules on use of testimony of medical malpractice experts have *96 been refined by our decisions. She urges "that the standard of care ... in North Dakota is such that an expert witness testifying about the care and treatment rendered by a defendant ... has to be commensurate or consistent with the same school of medicine, same field of medicine, same general line of practice as the defendant... and under similar circumstances." We disagree. The notion that a medical witness must be of the same "school of medicine" as the medical defendant has not been significant for a long time, even before this state adopted the Federal pattern of evidentiary rules. "It is not the school which he follows; but his knowledge, experience, and special training which qualifies the witness to testify as an expert in such cases." Ness v. Yeomans, 60 N.D. 368, 234 N.W. 75, 76 (1931). If the medical witness has such "knowledge, experience [or] special training," an objection about his particular field or practice only goes "to the weight of his testimony, rather than to his competency to testify." Benzmiller v. Swanson, 117 N.W.2d 281, 288 (N.D.1962). That, plainly, is what our current rules of evidence contemplate. NDREv Rule 702 says: The Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules for the identical FedREv Rule 702 say: We are unwilling to complicate the standards for qualifying an expert, so carefully stated in the rule of evidence, by adding an unexpressed refinement through one decision. Collom also seems to argue that there was no specific showing that Dr. Eisenberg was familiar with the surgical technique used by Dr. Lutz. The argument notes that, although both were surgeons, Dr. Lutz specialized in obstetrics and gynecology, while Dr. Eisenberg's expertise was in gastroenterology. A few courts have held that, to testify on the standard of care for a particular surgical technique, "a medical witness must have some familiarity with the particular medical or surgical technique involved in suit, unless the technique itself is so unique, as where the defendant is its sole practitioner, that no witness familiar with it is available." See Annotation, Medical Malpractice: Necessity and Sufficiency of Showing of Medical Witness' Familiarity with Particular Medical or Surgical Technique Involved in Suit, 46 A.L.R.3d 275, 278 (1972). Without adding such a refinement to our rule, we observe that Dr. Eisenberg did not testify about the surgical technique used by Dr. Lutz. Dr. Eisenberg's testimony focused on the causes of the opening in Collom's colon and its treatmentsubjects clearly within his gastroenterology expertise. His testimony surely helped the jury to understand the evidence and to determine the facts. That is all that the rule requires. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the evidentiary use of Dr. Eisenberg's testimony. Accordingly, we affirm. *97 ERICKSTAD, C.J., GIERKE and LEVINE, JJ., and PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, concur. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, sitting in place of VANDE WALLE, J., disqualified.