Opinion ID: 1297452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Qualification of Dr. Podgorny

Text: Dr. Pearson alleges the trial court erroneously qualified Dr. Podgorny as an expert. He contends simply because Dr. Podgorny is not a surgeon, he is not qualified to testify as an expert about the standard of care for surgeons as to the placement of subclavin catheters. We disagree. The qualification of an expert witness and the admissibility of an expert's testimony are matters within the trial court's discretion. Creed v. City of Columbia, 310 S.C. 342, 426 S.E.2d 785 (1993). We recently held in Lee v. Suess, ___ S.C. ___, 457 S.E.2d 344 (1995), a doctor's limited exposure to a particular field merely goes to the weight of his testimony and not its admissibility. Further, in Gooding v. Saint Francis Xavier Hosp., ___ S.C. ___, 454 S.E.2d 328 (Ct.App.1995), the court held although an emergency room technician may not have been qualified to testify about the broad field of anesthesiology, he was well-qualified to testify about the limited area of intubation. Similarly here, although Dr. Podgorny may not have been qualified to testify about the specialty of surgery, he was wellqualified to testify about the standard of care in the placement of the catheter. Dr. Podgorny is an emergency room doctor. However, he is Board certified in surgery and regularly inserts central venous catheters. Dr. Podgorny testified numerous specialists place these catheters, such as internists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc. He further testified the placement of these catheters is a relatively common procedure. We hold the trial court did not err in qualifying Dr. Podgorny. The trial court refused to allow two other witnesses to testify as to the standard of care in placement of the catheters. He, however, did allow them to testify as to the ideal placement of these catheters. Dr. Pearson alleges this was error. However, other experts and Dr. Pearson testified about the ideal placement of the catheter. Therefore, even if admission of this evidence was error, it was harmless since it is merely cumulative to other evidence. State v. Blackburn, 271 S.C. 324, 247 S.E.2d 334 (1978). Dr. Pearson then alleges the trial court erred in admitting the manufacturer inserts which are packaged with the catheters. Dr. Pearson argues the inserts can not establish the proper standard of care. The package inserts, however, were not offered to establish the standard of care. They were introduced to support a punitive award by showing Dr. Pearson's awareness of the conditions which might be caused by improper placement of the catheter. Furthermore, Dr. Pearson testified he was aware of the risks stated in the inserts. Therefore, if admission of the inserts was error, it was harmless since it was merely cumulative to other evidence. Blackburn, supra .