Opinion ID: 1672318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: I. Did the trial court err in sustaining defendant's objection to the qualification of Dr. John V. Cockrell as an expert witness?

Text: The professional qualifications and background of Dr. John V. Cockrell were fully developed during voir dire. Cockrell graduated from Columbia University Medical Center in 1937. His residency and surgical pathology was served at the Presbyterian Hospital in New York and his internship and assistant residency in surgery was taken at St. Marks Hospital in New York. Cockrell is licensed to practice medicine in Mississippi and came to Jackson in 1946 to serve as the chief of surgery at Veterans' Hospital. Upon retirement from that position in 1968, Cockrell was employed by the Department of Pathology at the University of Mississippi Medical School where he served as assistant professor of surgery and assistant professor of pathology until his retirement in 1977. Dr. Cockrell testified that he had knowledge of emergency room procedure at the Veterans' Hospital and that he was familiar with the standard of care and practice throughout the community. Dr. Cockrell testified that he had walked through the emergency room at the Mississippi Baptist Hospital, but that he had never studied the procedures and methods of handling patients employed by the Mississippi Baptist Hospital. [1] In deciding whether the trial court correctly excluded the testimony of Dr. Cockrell, the initial inquiry is whether the offered expert testimony will be of assistance to the trier of fact. Hardy v. Brantley, 471 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1985); Dazet v. Bass, 254 So.2d 183 (Miss. 1971). In medical malpractice cases we may say with confidence that generally expert medical testimony will be of such assistance. Jeanes v. Milner, 428 F.2d 598, (8th Cir.1970) (expert evidence was not required since alleged negligence was within the comprehension of a jury of laymen); Duling v. Bluefield Sanitorium, Inc., 149 W. Va. 567, 142 S.E.2d 754 (1965) (the general rule as to necessity of expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases is qualified so as to permit negligence to be established without expert testimony in cases where negligence or want of skill is so obvious as to dispense with need of expert testimony); Rural Educational Asso. v. Bush, 42 Tenn. App. 34, 298 S.W.2d 761 (1956) (expert testimony not necessary to establish negligence, for any layman would know that leaving sponge in plaintiff's body was negligent); c.f. Frazier v. Grace Hospital, 117 W. Va. 330, 185 S.E. 415 (1936) (plaintiff's extraordinary injuries and complications required expert testimony instead of conjecture of laymen), Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 515, at 518 (1971). The problem with the case sub judice is that such a determination is not possible because no proffer of the testimony of Dr. Cockrell was made a part of the record. The posture of the case sub judice is therefore identical to that in Dazet v. Bass, supra . In Dazet, one of the errors assigned on appeal was the refusal of the trial court to qualify plaintiff's expert witness. This Court stated: [T]hat question is not necessarily reached for the reason that Dr. Dugas was dismissed from the stand and no offer was made to take his testimony in the absence of the jury, nor was the substance of his testimony dictated into the record. When a party seeks reversal because of excluded testimony, he must either place the witness on the stand, ask the questions, and have the answers made of record, or else the witness must be presented and there must be a specific statement of what the answers or testimony of the witness would be. 254 So.2d at 187-188. The recent refinements regarding qualification of medical experts announced by this Court in Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So.2d 856 (Miss. 1985) apply retroactively to any case in which an appeal is pending and in which the issue has been properly preserved... . 466 So.2d at 876. Proper preservation of the issue of qualification of an expert medical witness includes satisfaction of the Dazet v. Bass requirement. See Hardy v. Brantley, 471 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1985). Based upon Dazet v. Bass, supra , this Court concludes that reversal solely on the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Cockrell's testimony would be inappropriate due to the failure of appellants to make a record of what that testimony would have been. However, this Court recognizes that the testimony of Dr. Cockrell's professional qualifications and experience, his expressed knowledge of the standard of care for emergency room doctors in Jackson, Mississippi, the city in which he practiced for nearly 40 years, and in other cities of the United States with which he was familiar, qualified him as an expert medical witness in the field of emergency room doctors. [2] He met the qualifications set forth in Hall v. Hilbun, supra and Hardy v. Brantley, supra , and should have been permitted to testify. It is significant to note, however, that this Court does not require the appellant to establish with certainty that the excluded testimony would affect the outcome of the trial. Murray v. Payne. 437 So.2d 47 (Miss. 1983). See Rule 103(a)(2) of the proposed Mississippi Rules of Evidence.