Court Opinion

ID: 9617392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:54:48.173175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:08.793241
License: Public Domain

Gernon, J.,
dissenting: The majority disqualifies Captline from testifying solely because he is licensed as a dentist rather than medical doctor. As I read K.S.A. 60-3412, this analysis is misplaced.
The statute in question states: “[N]o person shall qualify as an expert witness on such issue unless at least 50% of such person’s professional time within the two-year period preceding the incident giving rise to the action is devoted to die actual clinical practice in the same profession in which the defendant is licensed.” (Emphasis added.) In the present case, Captline was a dentist qualified to practice oral and maxillofacial surgeiy. The record reflects that he spent more than 50% of his time in actual clinical practice performing oral and maxillofacial surgery, the profession in which Bise was licensed. Substantial competent evidence supports the district court’s finding of fact that Bise was engaged in the practice or oral surgery rather than plastic surgery at the time of the incident in the present case. To disqualify Capt-line from testifying solely because of the nature of his license strains the meaning of the plain language employed by the legislature in K.S.A. 60-3412.
In Wisker v. Hart, 244 Kan. 36, 43-44, 766 P.2d 168 (1988), the court stated that K.S.A. 60-3412 was intended to prevent the use of professional witnesses, but “not intended to require diat *844only a surgeon could testify as to the standard of care of another surgeon, etc. The weight afforded the testimony of physicians testifying outside their area of professional specialization is a matter to be determined by the juiy.” 244 Kan. at 44. The fact that Captline was licensed as a dentist rather than a medical doctor goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony. The foundation for his testimony clearly showed that he had performed the type of surgery involved here about a thousand times.
I would affirm the district court.