Opinion ID: 1953829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: care?

Text: The issue under this question is whether an expert witness, called to establish the standard of care in pharmaceutical litigation for physicians, must possess a medical degree. This Court holds that he does not. What is necessary is that the witness possess medical knowledge, however obtained. Generally, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, an expert witness may testify thereto in opinion form or otherwise. Anchor Coatings, Inc. v. Marine Indus. Res. Insul. Inc., 490 So.2d 1210, 1217 (Miss. 1986); Hardy v. Brantley, 471 So.2d 358, 366 (Miss. 1985); Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So.2d 856, 873 (Miss. 1985). A witness may qualify as an expert based on his knowledge, skill, experience, training, education, or a combination thereof. Qualification as an expert does not necessarily rest upon the educational or professional degree a witness possesses. Sonford, 495 So.2d at 473. Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So.2d at 873. See also, Rule 702, Mississippi Rules of Evidence, effective January 1, 1986. Simply put, before one may testify as an expert, that person must be shown to know a great deal regarding the subject of his testimony. As a pharmacologist/toxicologist, Hughes was an expert in the area in which his testimony was offered. Mississippi Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 487 So.2d 1320 (Miss. 1986). Other jurisdictions have held likewise. In Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684 (Minn. 1977) a chief nurse anesthetist was not allowed to provide expert testimony relative to the use of anesthesia because he was not licensed to practice medicine. The Minnesota Supreme Court held the nurse was competent to testify notwithstanding the lack of a medical degree if he otherwise had sufficient scientific and practical experience about the matter to which he would have testified. Id. at 697. Likewise, in Hudgins v. Serrano, 186 N.J. Super. 465, 453 A.2d 218 (1982), the Court held that a license to practice medicine was not a sine qua non for qualification as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case. The Court held: We believe, as did the trial judge below, that while a license does indeed import the minimal technical training and knowledge essential to the expression of a meaningful and reliable opinion, that the prerequisite minimal technical training  and perhaps more  may also be gained otherwise and demonstrated as here. Id. 453 A.2d at 223. See also, Smith v. St. Therese Hospital, 106 Ill. App.3d 268, 62 Ill.Dec. 141, 435 N.E.2d 939 (1982); Mellies v. National Heritage, Inc., 6 Kan. App.2d 910, 636 P.2d 215 (1981). The instant record reflects that Michael P. Hughes, who taught medical students and advised and counseled physicians as to drug use and administration, through his skill, knowledge, training, and education, knew the standard of care to which physicians adhered when prescribing Bactrim. Therefore, this Court holds that he was qualified to deliver expert testimony, notwithstanding his lack of a medical degree, on the issue of a physician's standard of care in the use and administration of this drug. This is not to say that every pharmacologist or toxicologist is qualified to testify as an expert to establish the physicians' standard of care. Only if the witness possesses scientific, technical or specialized knowledge on a particular topic will he qualify as an expert on that topic. This witness qualified as an expert and should have been permitted to testify as to a physician's standard of care in issue here.