Court Opinion

ID: 9594761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:32:44.895576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:24.783291
License: Public Domain

Goolsby, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The sole question involved in this appeal by Jim Curtis Gooding is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in not allowing an emergency medical technician and paramedic to testify as an expert witness regarding the standard of care an anesthesiologist should follow when intubating a surgery patient and the anesthesiologist’s departure from that standard. The trial judge properly exercised his discretion and ought, therefore, to be affirmed.
St. Xavier Hospital admitted Gooding on July 8, 1990, for urological surgery. Dr. Judith Hood, a physician specializing in anesthesiology, administered anesthesia to Gooding the following morning in the operation room. Hood intubated Gooding while he was under anesthesia by inserting an endotracheal tube into his mouth and down his trachea. She also inserted a plastic airway tube to prevent Gooding from, among other things, occluding the endotracheal tube.
Gooding remained under anesthesia a little over two hours. Later, after being taken to his room, he discovered his two front teeth were chipped.
His complaint alleges Hood’s negligence during the intubation process caused the damage to his teeth.1
At trial, Gooding called Sorensen, an emergency medical technician and paramedic, and proffered him as an expert witness regarding “methods of intubation, and what happened to *330[Gooding].”2 The trial judge refused to qualify Sorensen as an expert witness.
The question of whether a witness is an expert is, within proper limitations, a preliminary fact to be found by the trial judge; and when there is any evidence to sustain the trial judge’s findings regarding the competency of the witness to testify as an expert in a particular field, the finding is not reviewable by the appellate court, absent an error of law. P.H. Vartanian, Annotation, Review on Appeal of Decision of Trial Court as to Qualification or Competency of Expert Witnesses, 166 A.L.R. 1067 (1947); see Jenkins v. Long Motor Lines, 233 S.C. 87, 103 S.E. (2d) 523, 528 (1958) (a trial judge’s ruling to exclude expert testimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears an abuse of discretion has occurred); Creed v. City of Columbia 310 S.C. 342, 426 S.E. (2d) 785 (1993) (the qualification of a witness as an expert and the admissibility of the witness’s testimony are matters largely within the discretion of the trial judge); cf. Rule 43(m), SCRCP (rule of court regarding expert testimony).
I would hold the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in excluding Sorensen’s testimony as an expert witness on the issues of the standard of care an anesthesiologist must observe when intubating a patient and Hood’s compliance with that standard. As I read the record, Sorensen admitted, when defense counsel cross-examined him about his qualifications as an expert in intuabtion, he did not know the standard of care required for an anesthesiologist when an anesthesiologist intubates a patient. Obviously, if Sorensen was unfamiliar with the applicable standard, he necessarily could not have testified about whether Hood deviated from that standard when she intubated Gooding. Indeed, there was no proffer of any evidence by Gooding that Sorensen was prepared to testify that Hood departed from the standard of care required of an anesthesiologist when intubating a patient.
*331South Carolina follows the rule stated in 3 KRAMER, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ¶ 29.02[3], at 29-12 (1994):
In order to recover in an action for medical malpractice against a specialist, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant specialist failed to meet the standard of care required of physicians in that specialty.
See Bellamy v. Payne, 304 S.C. 179, 403 S.E. (2d) 326 (Ct. App. 1991) (an orthopedic surgeon held not qualified to testify as an expert witness in an action against a podiatrist where the witness did not satisfy the trial judge he was familiar with the diagnostic, surgical, and treatment procedures used by podiatrists). Sorensen’s testimony did not satisfy this rule. See Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E. (2d) 59 (Ct. App. 1984) (to qualify as an expert witness in a case involving allegations of malpractice against a podiatrist, a witness must have knowledge of the standard of care in the podiatric practice).
I would affirm, there being evidence to support the trial judge’s findings when he made them and there being no error of law.
On the latter point and contrary to what the majority appears to find, the trial judge did not disqualify Sorensen as an expert witness because Sorensen was not an anesthesiologist; rather, the trial judge disqualified Sorensen because he viewed the evidence as showing Sorensen lácked expertise as to the matters in dispute, ie., the standard of care required of an anesthesiologist who undertakes to intubate a patient and Hood’s conformity with that standard. In ruling Sorensen disqualified to testify as an expert, the trial judge stated: *332(Emphasis added.) The trial judge made his ruling after counsel handed him copies of this court’s opinions in Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E. (2d) 59 (Ct. App. 1984), and Durr v. McElrath, 299 S.C. 30, 382 S.E. (2d) 20 (Ct. App. 1989). These two cases recognize a medical practitioner’s duty of care must be measured by the defendant practitioner’s particular medical field.
*331The [cjourt is of the opinion that the necessary requirement for expert testimony, and particularly in malpractice cases, is of such a nature that the witness must have a special expertise to compare with that of the physician toho is defending the charges.
In this case, even though the witness is somewhat trained in the mechanics of this medical assistance [sic], he is not a medical doctor; he does not have the medical expertise required to testify under the circumstances of this case____

The majority finds as a fact that Goodling’s “two front teeth were chipped during surgery at the hospital.”- Both defendants, however, denied Gooding’s allegations in this regard.

 In his brief, Gooding frames the issue that this court should decide on appeal as follows:
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in excluding the testimony of Mr. Sorensen, Plaintiffs expert witness, where Mr. Sorensen, although neither a medical doctor nor an anesthesiologist, was an expert regarding intubation and the issue to be decided by the jury was whether Dr. Hood, an anesthesiologist, deviated from the proper standard of care for intubating a patient.