Opinion ID: 1096024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brenda Lollar's Claim

Text: A physician's negligence can be established only through the production of (1) expert medical testimony as to the proper practice, treatment, or procedure, Dobbs v. Smith, 514 So.2d 871, 872 (Ala.1987), or (2) facts rendering the lack of skill or care... so apparent as to be within the comprehension of the average layman. Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall, 481 So.2d 1126 (Ala.1986). Dobbs, 514 So.2d at 872. In an effort to avail herself of the first method of proof, Brenda Lollar offered the expert testimony of Dr. William Daniel, who gave the opinion that Dr. Tankersley had breached the applicable standard of care in performing the D and C. In his order granting the motion for a summary judgment, however, the trial judge pointed out numerous reasons for concluding that Dr. Daniel's credentials and experience failed to qualify him as a similarly situated healthcare provider as contemplated by § 6-5-548. Therefore, he rejected the proffered testimony. It is well settled that the trial court has considerable discretion in admitting or rejecting expert testimony. Hagler v. Gilliland, 292 Ala. 262, 292 So.2d 647 (1974); Baggett v. Allen, 273 Ala. 164, 137 So.2d 37 (1962). Under the facts of this case, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in rejecting the proffered testimony. Mrs. Lollar therefore did not present competent expert testimony to satisfy the criterion of the first method, and she has not argued for the application of the second method. Neither has she proposed that Dr. Tankersley's own affidavit presented substantial evidence of a breach of due care. Consequently, the summary judgment in favor of Dr. Tankersley is affirmed. AFFIRMED. HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur. MADDOX, J., concurs specially. HOUSTON, J., concurs in the result.