Opinion ID: 3040352
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: There was insufficient evidence to warrant

Text: a “two schools of thought” charge. The Regers argue that the district court’s instruction on the “two schools of thought” doctrine was an abuse of discretion because there was insufficient evidence to warrant the charge.2 Presumably, they base their argument on the following portion of 1 We review a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2000). 2 The decision whether a party has produced sufficient evidence to warrant a (continued...) 3 Dr. Pizarro’s cross-examination: Q: You didn’t say that yesterday, did you? You didn’t tell Mr. Hudgins that Dr. Gaynor and Dr. Spray had periods of time that they took to get to that target temperature, right? A: No, my take away message during the training was that, you know, surgeons had different preferences, generally they target temperature and that’s how they carry surgery, and then certainly tailor the strategy as to how they did things according to what the anatomy of the lesion was, what the repair to be undertaken was, what the patient’s size was, and what, you know, a number of other circumstances. Q: And you think that they tailored it to what was required by the standard of care, correct? A: I don’t know if you want to talk about standard of care, but maybe I think it would be worthwhile to talk about that, you know, so the jury could understand what standard of care means. Q: Well, wait, answer my question and then you can explain it. Do you think that they cooled their patients for the period of time that they cooled them as we see here, based on what they thought was right for the person according to the standard of care? A: No, they made a decision based on what they thought individually was the right thing to do for that patient. There is no standard of care. App. 634-35 (emphasis is the Regers’). The Regers argue that, “in the absence of any standard of care, there cannot be a second school of thought unless that school of thought is known as ‘anything goes.’” Regers’ Br. at 24 (emphasis is the Regers’). However, they have taken Dr. Pizarro’s 2 (...continued) requested instruction is a matter within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Tormenia v. First Investors Realty Co., Inc., 251 F.3d 128, 136 (3d Cir. 2000). 4 statement out of context. Immediately after Dr. Pizarro’s last answer recited above, Dr. Pizzaro offered the following explanation: there is a governing body called the Institute of Medicine that is trying to establish guidelines particularly based on evidence, you know, based on information.