Opinion ID: 1647301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert Testimony of Perfusionist.

Text: One of plaintiff's key expert witnesses was Aaron Hill. He, like defendant Vandehaar, is a perfusionist. As previously noted, perfusionists are not medical doctors. They are highly trained technicians who assist in heart surgery by operating the heart/lung machine. Plaintiff examined Hill regarding the appropriate standard of care among perfusionists. Hill so informed the jury and offered his opinion that Vandehaar's conduct during Vera's surgery was substandard. This testimony proceeded without objection from defendants' counsel. The controversy concerning Hill centers on the following question asked by plaintiff's counsel: Mr. Hill, from your reviewing of the entire surgical record, including the perfusion record, have you formulated an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of perfusion certainty as to what caused the brain damage sustained by Vera Tappe as a result of that surgery on June 15th of 1984? Defense counsel objected. He cited Iowa Code section 147.139 and Iowa Rule of Evidence 702 for the proposition that Hill was not qualified to answer the question. The court sustained the objection and plaintiff now asserts the ruling was erroneous. Iowa Code section 147.139 limits expert testimony regarding standard of care to persons whose medical ... qualifications relate directly to the medical problem ... at issue and the type of treatment administered in the case. Rule 702 provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Iowa R.Evid. 702. The question is whether perfusionists are qualified to offer expert opinion on the cause of stroke during cardiac bypass surgery. In assessing the propriety of the court's exclusion of the proffered opinion, we are guided by the rule that the admission of expert testimony rests within the sound discretion of the district court. Gail v. Clark, 410 N.W.2d 662, 673 (Iowa 1987). Reversal on this ground is not justified absent manifest abuse of that discretion. Id. It is undisputed that Hill's perfusion qualifications are, as defendant Vandehaar's counsel concedes, impressive. It is not enough, however, that a witness be generally qualified in a field of expertise; the witness must also be qualified to answer the particular question propounded. Ruden v. Hansen, 206 N.W.2d 713, 717 (Iowa 1973); Tiemeyer v. McIntosh, 176 N.W.2d 819, 824 (Iowa 1970). Although phrased in terms of perfusion certainty, the question posed to Hill called for medical knowledge regarding causes of brain damage during surgery. Given Hill's lack of training outside the perfusion field, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to prevent him from rendering an expert opinion calling for general medical knowledge and diagnosis.