Opinion ID: 1602971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in ruling plaintiff's expert witnesses unqualified to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to dr. teran-benitez, and consequently granting dr. teran-benitez's motion for summary judgment.

Text: ¶ 14. McDonald argues that the trial court misapplied Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 in granting the Motion to Strike Expert Witnesses of Plaintiff and for Summary Judgment filed by Dr. Teran-Benitez and Gastroenterology Center, P.A. Rule 702 states: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Miss. R. Evid. 702. ¶ 15. Expert testimony should only be admitted if it withstands the two-prong inquiry under Rule 702. First, the witness must be qualified by virtue of his or her knowledge, skill, experience or education. Second, the witness's scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact in understanding or deciding a fact in issue. Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 35 (Miss.2003) ( citing Miss. R. Evid. 702) (citation omitted). Generally, it is not required that an expert in a medical-malpractice case be of the same specialty as the doctor about whom the expert is testifying. Hubbard, 954 So.2d at 957 (Miss. 2007). [1] It is the scope of the witness' knowledge and not the artificial classification by title that should govern the threshold question of admissibility. Id. ( quoting West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714, 719 (Miss.1995)). However, the expert still must show satisfactory familiarity with the specialty of the defendant doctor in order to testify as to the standard of care owed to the patient. Id. ( citing West, 661 So.2d at 718-19). ¶ 16. McDonald designated Dr. Rodrigo Galvez and Dr. George Nichols to offer testimony regarding the standard of care applicable to Dr. Teran-Benitez. In ruling on the motion, the trial court determined that the [p]laintiffs have offered no evidence that either of their experts have any familiarity with the standard of care applicable to Dr. Teran, a gastroenterologist. Dr. Galvez, a board-certified pathologist and psychiatrist, has practiced pathology since 1968 and both pathology and psychiatry since 1981. He has never practiced in the field of gastroenterology, and since medical school has not performed any procedures in this field other than one colonoscopy in 1976. Further, Dr. Galvez has never admitted a patient to an acute-care facility other than a psychiatric facility, and he has not performed an EGD, the procedure Mr. McDonald was undergoing, since medical school in the 1960s. He last intubated a patient in 1963. Dr. Galvez also has never been involved in a procedure with a DNR patient, where consent from a family member was necessary to take action to save the patient's life. ¶ 17. In order to testify, Dr. Galvez, while not required to be a gastroenterologist, had to at least be familiar with the standard of care to which a gastroenterologist is held. See Troupe v. McAuley, 955 So.2d 848, 856-57 (Miss.2007). Based on Dr. Galvez's deposition testimony and curriculum vitae, the trial court found that Dr. Galvez was not familiar with the proper standard of care and had not exercised the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the field of gastroenterology. Poole v. Avara, 908 So.2d 716, 724 (Miss.2005) ( citing McLemore, 863 So.2d at 37-38). ¶ 18. Regarding the standard of care applicable to Dr. Teran-Benitez, Dr. Nichols, a pathologist, testified in his deposition that he (Dr. Nichols) had never treated a patient in Mr. McDonald's situation. Dr. Nichols also admitted that I have never written DNR orders or been involved in those discussions about anyone other than my own relatives. McDonald presented no evidence that Dr. Nichols was familiar with the standard of care attributable to gastroenterologists. When questioned about his standard-of-care testimony, Dr. Nichols responded that he was not really there to offer standard-of-care testimony other than standard of care for a proven practicing physician ... a plain M.D. Dr. Nichols offered no testimony that he was competent to testify to the standard of care of a gastroenterologist. As this Court stated in Hubbard, [i]t is illogical to allow a proposed expert to testify as to the standard of care of a specialty with which he has demonstrated no familiarity. Hubbard, 954 So.2d at 958. ¶ 19. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Motion to Strike Expert Witnesses of Plaintiff filed by Dr. Teran-Benitez and Gastroenterology Center, P.A. The trial court committed no error in ruling that the experts offered no testimony that convinces this Court that either of them is competent to testify as to that standard of care. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. As previously discussed, as a general rule, expert testimony must be used in proving the elements of medical negligence. Absent expert testimony, there is no triable issue of fact with regard to the alleged medical negligence of Dr. Teran-Benitez. See Palmer v. Biloxi Reg'l Med. Ctr., 564 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1990). ¶ 20. This issue is without merit.