Opinion ID: 1610267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ex parte Waddail

Text: Reversing the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, this Court, in Ex parte Waddail, held that the Court of Civil Appeals had erred in applying subsection (c) and the last sentence of subsection (e) of § 6-5-548 in the Alabama Medical Liability Act to determine whether the proffered expert witness was competent to testify against the defendant doctor on the issue of medical negligence. [The defendant doctor] is board-certified in family medicine; however, the alleged breach of the standard of care occurred while he was practicing emergency medicine. In Medlin [v. Crosby, 583 So.2d 1290 (Ala.1991) ], this Court held that for the purposes of determining whether a defendant doctor is a `specialist' under subsection (c), `the trial court should look to whether the defendant health care provider is board-certified in the speciality or discipline or school of practice that covers the area of the alleged breach.' 583 So.2d at 1294 (emphasis added [in Ex parte Waddail ]). [The defendant doctor], who is not board-certified in emergency medicine,... is not a specialist.' (Footnote omitted.) Ex parte Waddail, 827 So.2d at 793. In other words, we held that a defendant board-certified health-care provider practicing outside his speciality in undertaking the allegedly negligent treatment is not a specialist protected by the more stringent qualifications imposed by subsection (c) (as compared with subsection (b)) of § 6-5-548 for adverse expert witnesses. We held further that the disqualification of any proffered adverse expert witness not certified by the same American board in the same specialty imposed by the last sentence of subsection (e) [of § 6-5-548] applies only to cases involving specialists. 827 So.2d at 794. We held that, because the defendant doctor had been practicing outside his speciality in committing the alleged medical negligence, he was not a specialist in the case then before us. We held that, because the defendant doctor was not a specialist, subsection (b) rather than subsection (c) of § 6-5-548 applied to determine whether the proffered expert witness qualified as similarly situated with the defendant. We concluded that the proffered expert witness met the qualifications of a similarly situated health care provider specified by § 6-5-548(b), which did not require board certification in the same specialty as the defendant's, and therefore met the applicable criterion for competency to testify imposed by § 6-5-548(e).