Opinion ID: 1806854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The exclusion of the testimony of the podiatrist.

Text: The Baraboo podiatrist, Dr. Hommel, was allowed to testify in plaintiffs' behalf with respect to his consultations with Mrs. Simpsen both before and after the operation and his communications with Dr. Sachtjen. However, the trial court ruled that the witness is not competent to render an opinion in the area of medical causation. The question of an expert witness' qualifications is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion its ruling will stand. [10] Sec. 147.14 (2) (b), Stats., provides that the court may permit any person to testify on a medical matter where proof satisfactory to the court is presented as to the witness' qualifications. Dr. Hommel is a podiatrist licensed by the State Board of Medical Examiners, with seventeen years of practical experience. He attended an accredited school of podiatry, where the curriculum included the basic sciences, orthopedics, bacteriology, histology. He is on the courtesy staff of St. Clare's Hospital in Baraboo, and the Reedsburg Municipal Hospital. He testified that he had had experience in diagnosing the effects of trauma to the feet, experience in diagnosing osteomyelitis, and has performed corrective surgery of the nature of that herein involved. He had treated Mrs. Simpsen both before and after her operation, and communicated with Dr. Sachtjen about her postoperative condition. This court has never specifically passed on the question of whether podiatrists are qualified to testify on strictly medical matters, although other courts have. [11] It has held osteopaths so qualified. [12] In Allen v. Voje [13] it was held not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to refuse to allow a trained nurse to testify on a strictly medical subject, especially where the party calling her had numerous qualified experts who were permitted to testify on the matter. Our recent decision in Cramer v. Theda Clark Memorial Hospital [14] reiterates the standard on determining whether expert testimony should be received as requiring that the witness `must have such skill, knowledge or experience in that field....' Discretion is still left in the trial court to determine whether the expert should be permitted to testify. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court here in excluding that portion of Dr. Hommel's testimony relating to the infection and the causes thereof. The question is not whether podiatrists generally are qualified to testify as medical experts, but whether in excluding the particular testimony in this particular case, the trial court abused its discretion. ... It has been stated in this respect that the responsibility for the exercise of the judicial power of determining whether a given witness has the qualifications which will permit him, to the profit of the jury, to state his opinion upon an issue of this kind, may best be left with the judge presiding at the trial, who has a comprehensive view of the issue and of all of the evidence, and the witness himself before his face. [15] By the Court. Order affirmed; option provided by such order is extended for a period of thirty days from remittitur.