Opinion ID: 1967565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dr Charles Vacanti

Text: Dr. Haidak offered Dr. Vacanti, a professor of medicine and an anesthesiologist, as an expert in the standard of care of the physicians and patients in a hospital, anesthesia, and the treatment of ischemia. After voir dire, the court accepted him as an expert with respect to medical records, the standard of care with respect to treatment of ischemia generally, and the standard of care for anesthesiology. Dr. Haidak did not object when the court declined to qualify Dr. Vacanti to testify about the treatment of ION. Dr. Vacanti had never treated a patient with ION, nor was he familiar with its effects or treatment. He had never lectured or conducted research on ION. He also testified that he did not believe that Dr. Corso's actions caused the ION. Dr. Haidak claims that the trial court's decision to limit Dr. Vacanti's testimony to ischemia generally, and thereby exclude testimony as to ION, was manifestly erroneous and an abuse of discretion. [4] Coates, supra, 558 A.2d at 1152; Ornoff v. Kuhn & Kogan Chartered, 549 A.2d 728, 731 (D.C. 1988). To support this proposition, Dr. Haidak refers us to Baerman, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a `physician is not incompetent to testify as an expert merely because he is not a specialist in the particular field of which he speaks.' Baerman v. Reisinger, 124 U.S.App. D.C. 180, 181, 363 F.2d 309, 310 (1966) (quoting Sher v. De Haven, 91 U.S.App. D.C. 257, 262, 199 F.2d 777, 782 (1952) (other citations omitted)). The Baerman court was persuaded by the record that the physician was knowledgeable about the subject matter about which he would have testified, and held that it was thus error to exclude his testimony. Id. We are not persuaded, on this record, that the trial judge erred by ruling that Dr. Vacanti was not knowledgeable about ION. In any event, despite the limitations imposed on Dr. Vacanti's testimony, a review of the record reveals that he was, in fact, allowed to testify about ION on cross examination: Q: [Y]ou do not know, with any degree of medical certaintyreasonable medical certainty whether there are any treatments that would reverse or even improve the prognosis of ION? A: Thethat question is not known to anybody, particularly. The question was then rephrased to include prevention of ION, to which the doctor again responded that no one knows with absolute certainty, that is correct. A lengthy discussion followed as to the appropriate degree of certainty, but Dr. Vacanti never offered to testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that ION is preventable. We, therefore, need not decide whether Dr. Vacanti had sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience, Dyas, supra, to testify as an expert with respect to ION, or whether his testimony should have been allowed on direct examination pursuant to Baerman. The trial court did not exclude testimony on cross examination, and any prejudice to Dr. Haidak was minimal.