Opinion ID: 3038987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Care for Medical Specialist

Text: Swope also argues the district court abused its discretion by allowing Dr. Razzaq to argue during closing that Swope failed to support his case by calling an expert radiation oncologist to establish the standard of care for the defendant urologist and by not allowing Swope to argue a physician, regardless of specialty, is competent to testify as to the standard of care of another physician. See United States v. Macklin, 104 F.3d 1046, 1049 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted) (“Trial courts are invested with broad discretion in controlling closing arguments, and we will reverse only if the trial court abused that discretion.”). Based on our review of the record and Missouri case law, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion. Missouri cases hold the requisite standard of care imposed on a medical defendant in a medical malpractice case is “that degree of care, skill, and proficiency which is commonly exercised by the ordinarily skillful, careful, and prudent physician, engaged in a similar practice under the same or similar conditions.” Yoos v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis, 645 S.W.2d 177, 183 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (emphasis added) (quoting Rauschelbach v. Benincasa, 372 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Mo. 1963)); see also Hart v. Steele, 416 S.W.2d 927, 931-32 (Mo. 1967); Steele v. Woods, 327 S.W.2d 187, 196 n.11 (Mo. 1959) (collecting authorities). It therefore was not an abuse of discretion for the district court (1) to allow Dr. Razzaq to argue to the jury an expert urologist, not an expert radiation oncologist, should determine the standard of care for a urologist, and (2) to prohibit Swope from arguing Dr. Razzaq’s specialty was irrelevant and the real test was for the defendant’s profession in general. Accordingly, we affirm. -5-