Opinion ID: 1952386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Negligence Claim against Wheeler

Text: [¶ 10] The court concluded that Searles had presented no evidence of a standard of care required of athletic trainers. As an athletic trainer, Wheeler has the duty to conform to the standard of care required of an ordinary careful trainer. Williams v. Inverness Corp., 664 A.2d 1244, 1246 (Me. 1995). Athletic trainers are licensed by the State, 32 M.R.S.A. §§ 14351-14362 (Supp. 1996) [3] , and establishing the standard of care for these licensed professionals in their treatment of athletes ordinarily requires expert testimony. Forbes v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, Inc., 552 A.2d 16, 17 (Me.1988) (ordinarily, a plaintiff can discharge his burden of proof for a claim of negligent medical care only by expert medical testimony establishing the appropriate standard of medical care...). See also Seven Tree Manor, Inc. v. Kallberg, 1997 ME 10, ¶ 7, 688 A.2d 916 (professional engineer); Jim Mitchell and Jed Davis, P.A., v. Jackson, 627 A.2d 1014, 1017 (Me.1993) (attorneys). We have long recognized that expert testimony may not be necessary where the negligence and harmful results are sufficiently obvious as to lie within common knowledge.... Cyr v. Giesen, 150 Me. 248, 252, 108 A.2d 316, 318 (1954). Unlike the standard of reasonable care for the health and safety of student athletes applicable to a basketball coach, which can be ascertained by a lay jury, the standard of care applicable to an athletic trainer who treats physical injuries or who must make judgments about the severity of a physical condition does not ordinarily lend itself to common knowledge. See, e.g., Gillespie v. Southern Utah State College, 669 P.2d 861, 864 (Utah 1983). [¶ 11] The gravamen of Searles's allegations against Wheeler, set forth in Counts VI and VII of his complaint, involves more than a claim that Wheeler negligently conducted a course of treatment of Searles's injuries that contributed to a worsening of his condition, or that he failed to appreciate the seriousness of Searles's condition. Searles claims that Wheeler failed to advise Coach Simonds that Paul Searles should not be playing basketball and the condition of Paul Searles's knees was such that continued play before complete healing will likely cause permanent injury. The deposition of Wheeler demonstrates an awareness of the acuteness of Searles's knee problems. Simonds states in his deposition that he was never advised by Wheeler that Searles could be permanently impaired by continued play, and he does not recall the trainer suggesting that Searles should not play. He also asserts that the trainer decided whether an injured player could play basketball, not the coach. To the extent that Searles's claim of negligence against Wheeler involves a failure by Wheeler to communicate to Simonds the nature and extent of Searles's knee problems, or a failure by Wheeler to advise Searles that he should not play basketball in light of Wheeler's knowledge of Searles's medical condition, Searles did not have to provide expert testimony about the standard of care applicable to an athletic trainer. [4] Jurors could apply their common knowledge in determining whether such failures, if they occurred, constituted a breach by Wheeler of his duty to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of Searles. [5]