Court Opinion

ID: 9680272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:27:59.849344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:27.385885
License: Public Domain

Frank Holt, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s view that the court erred when it allowed opinion testimony that the defendant was not negligent when he severed Mrs. Gramling’s ureter. In McClellan v. French, 246 Ark. 728, 439 S.W. 2d 813 (1969), as the majority notes, we held that an expert witness, a doctor, was properly permitted to testify that the suturing of a bleeding wound, in his opinion, was not “malpractice.” There, as here, the argument was made that this opinion was the ultimate question or issue for the jury to determie. There we noted that the expert witness used and understood the word “malpractice” as it related to the “standard medical procedure in the community.” Here, as I view the record, the expert witness also based his opinion upon the recognized standards and procedures of the medical profession in the community. Further, I do not agree that our recent Rule 704, which the trial court relied upon, circumscribed the admissibility of the opinion testimony in this case. Neither of the doctors told the jury how to rule, and it was free to accept or reject their testimony as any other witness. Neither was there error in allowing testimony and argument conerning evidence as to the percentage of ureters severed by appellee in similar surgeries since, as appellee correctly points out, the appellants made no objection to this deposition testimony nor the argument made to the jury. I would affirm.