Title: Malone v. Daugherty
Citation: 453 So. 2d 721
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 1984

453 So. 2d 721 (1984)
Larry Lee MALONE
v.
M. Preston DAUGHERTY, M.D., individually and Old Shell Road Orthopaedic Associates, P.A.
83-170.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 4, 1984.
Rehearing Denied June 22, 1984.
G. Wayne Ashbee, Mobile, for appellant.
W. Boyd Reeves of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes &amp; Reeves, Mobile, for appellees.
JONES, Justice.
The sole issue presented on appeal from a summary judgment in this medical malpractice *722 case is whether the trial court erred in ruling that Plaintiff's expert evidence failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendants' alleged breach of the applicable standard of professional care. Plaintiff alleges that individual Defendant Dr. Preston Daugherty, as agent of the corporate Defendant, was negligent in performing surgery on Plaintiff and wrongfully failed to inform the Plaintiff of the risks involved in the surgery.
The motion for summary judgment, the grounds therefor, and the movant's supporting evidence addressed only the Plaintiff's claim for negligent surgical procedure. The trial court's order, granting summary judgment as to this claim only, was made final, and thus appealable, pursuant to A.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Plaintiff's claim for failure of informed consent is not presented for our review. Treating the Rule 54(b) certification as a partial summary judgment, we affirm.
Plaintiff/Appellant Larry Lee Malone, a 27-year-old married male, underwent a surgical procedure known as a laminectomy on May 18, 1979. Dr. Daugherty performed the operation, assisted by Dr. Eugene T. Saiter. During the course of the operation, the patient's blood pressure dropped, necessitating an emergency procedure to repair the left common iliac artery and vein, which had been lacerated during the laminectomy.
Malone urges us to reverse and remand this case for trial on the merits, claiming that there existed a scintilla of evidence that Dr. Daugherty breached the requisite standard of care during the surgery. In support of this contention, Malone relies on the testimony of his expert, Dr. Henry LaRocca, who testified on direct examination as follows:
*723 Later, also on direct examination, Dr. LaRocca testified:
Despite some degree of equivocation on Dr. LaRocca's part, we agree that this testimony, on its face, when viewed abstractly, independently, and separately from the balance of his sworn statement, would appear sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. But our review of the evidence cannot be so limited. The test is whether Dr. LaRocca's testimony, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to create a reasonable inference of the fact Plaintiff sought to prove. That is to say, could a jury, as the finder of fact, reasonably infer from this medical expert's testimony, or any part thereof when viewed against the whole, that the defendant doctor had acted contrary to the recognized standards of professional care in the instant case.
Thus, in applying this test, we must examine the expert witness's testimony as a whole. On cross-examination, Dr. LaRocca testified as follows:
While it is true that conflicting inferences from the same testimony, when viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, may establish the requisite scintilla of evidence, *724 we agree with the trial judge that, when Dr. LaRocca's testimony is viewed as a whole, as opposed to its isolated parts, no conflicting factual inferences exist. It is evident that Dr. LaRocca was confused by the use of the term "standard of care," as that term is used in a legal sense. On direct examination, Dr. LaRocca seems to be saying that the laceration of the blood vessels during the laminectomy fell below the recognized standard of care. Instead, as we discover upon further reading, Dr. LaRocca is equating the term "standard of care" with the ultimate, most satisfactory result of the operation, i.e., "the removal of the diseased disc tissue without at the same time producing damage to undiseased structures."
Here, it is clear, by the conclusion of his testimony, that this misunderstanding had been rectified, and that Dr. LaRocca's testimony establishes that Dr. Daugherty, in his opinion, did not breach the standard of care for this particular operation, and that such an occurrence as the laceration of the blood vessels was a surgical accident, and did not equate with negligence.
In Moses v. Gaba, 435 So. 2d 58 (Ala. 1983), this Court observed:
In keeping with the Moses principle, it is our view of the evidence that Dr. LaRocca termed what happened during the course of Mr. Malone's operation "an accident." After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that there was not a scintilla of evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Dr. Daugherty's actions in performing the surgery fell below the required standard of care. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court with respect to the negligence claim is due to be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.