Opinion ID: 2582842
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether It Was Error To Decline To Consider Expert Affidavits Submitted by the Hymeses

Text: Although the affidavits at issue were not relevant to the two motions upon which the superior court decided this casethe motion for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the motion for summary judgment on Rita Hymes's NIED claimthey do relate to Donald Hymes's substantive claim of medical malpractice. Thus, the affidavits were relevant to Dr. DeRamus and Pomeroy's motion for summary judgment regarding medical malpractice, which must be addressed on remand. Thus, we address whether the superior court should have considered the affidavits. In April 2006 the superior court struck Dr. Houk's affidavit, concluding that Dr. Houk lacked the training, experience, and board certification in a relevant field necessary to serve as an expert. In March 2007, as part of its omnibus order granting summary judgment to Dr. DeRamus and Pomeroy, the superior court also denied the Hymeses' request to file the expert witness affidavit of Dr. Neuwelt, explaining among other things that the affidavit did not meet the formal requirements of Civil Rule 76, that the affidavit was filed four months after the deadline, and that all claims relating to Hymes had already been dismissed on May 17, 2006. The Hymeses argue that the superior court erred in excluding the expert affidavits of Dr. Neuwelt and Dr. Houk. [42] Dr. DeRamus and Pomeroy do not respond on the merits, noting only that the expert affidavits were not relevant to the motions for summary judgment ruled upon by the superior court. But, as noted above, the expert affidavits are relevant to the medical malpractice issue, which the court must address on remand. Accordingly, we address the claim that the expert affidavits should have been considered. Alaska Statute 09.55.540(a)(1) provides that the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must prove the degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised under the circumstances, at the time of the act complained of, by health care providers in the field or specialty in which the defendant is practicing. Alaska Statute 09.20.185 further provides: (a) In an action based on professional negligence, a person may not testify as an expert witness on the issue of the appropriate standard of care unless the witness is (1) a professional who is licensed in this state or in another state or country; (2) trained and experienced in the same discipline or school of practice as the defendant or in an area directly related to a matter at issue; and (3) certified by a board recognized by the state as having acknowledged expertise and training directly related to the particular field or matter at issue. (b) The provisions of (a) of this section do not apply if the state has not recognized a board that has certified the witness in the particular field or matter at issue.