Opinion ID: 1953829
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Was Hughes qualified to testify concerning causation?

Text: In Sonford Products Corp. v. Freels, 495 So.2d 468 (Miss. 1986), this Court reversed a circuit judge's order which disallowed a toxicologist from testifying as an expert witness in a workmen's compensation proceeding. Because he was not a medical doctor or a licensed physician, the toxicologist was not allowed to testify concerning the medical causation between the decedent's employment and his fatal condition. The key to the Sonford decision was the Court's recognition that `medical causation' is no more than causation in fact. Id. at 472. The Court held further: It is this Court's opinion that Dr. Verlangieri is qualified to give an opinion regarding such cause in fact and should not be disqualified from testifying because his degree is a Ph.D. instead of an M.D. The Commission's inquiry should be whether the witness is in fact qualified  by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education  not by what degree he holds. It is certain and probable that Ph.D. biochemists and toxicologists are at least equally competent to testify as to the cause and effect of chemicals in our environment as medical doctors. 495 So.2d at 473, see also, Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 487 So.2d 1320, 1325-27 (Miss. 1986). The Sanford rationale concerning causation would apply equally to the present case. A pharmacologist/toxicologist would be at least equally competent to testify concerning what effect a certain drug would have on the human body.