Court Opinion

ID: 9779485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:02:15.467338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:26.957577
License: Public Domain

Donald L. Corbin, Justice, dissenting. The majority does no more than substitute its independent thinking for that of the trial judge on the issue of the admissibility of Dr. Epstein’s proffered expert testimony on the standard of care for diagnosing child abuse in Hot Springs. In so doing, the majority fails to apply the abuse-of-discretion standard by which we are required to review the trial court’s ruling in this matter. An expert witness’s qualifications are a matter lying within the trial court’s discretion, and, absent an abuse of discretion, will be upheld on appeal. Brumley v. Naples, 320 Ark. 310, 896 S.W.2d 860 (1995); Goodwin v. Harrison, 300 Ark. 474, 780 S.W.2d 518 (1989). We have stated that manifest abuse of discretion means “ ‘a discretion improvidently exercised, i.e., exercised thoughtlessly and without due consideration.’ ” Nazarenko v. CTI Trucking Co., Inc., 313 Ark. 570, 582, 856 S.W.2d 869, 875 (1993) (quoting Security Ins. Co. v. Owen, 255 Ark. 526, 501 S.W.2d 229 (1973)). Applying that definition to the facts of the present case, I cannot agree that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Epstein’s testimony. To sustain its medical-malpractice claim, appellant was required to prove “[t]he degree of skill and learning ordinarily possessed and used by members of the profession of the medical care provider in good standing, engaged in the same type of practice or specialty in the locality in which he practices, or in a similar locality[.]” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-206 (1987) (emphasis added). Applying this standard, the trial court determined that Dr. Epstein was not qualified to offer expert testimony on the issue of the standard of care for diagnosing child abuse in Hot Springs. I find no abuse of discretion. As regards the differences in the medical specialties of Dr. Epstein and Dr. Stecker, Dr. Epstein’s testimony and curriculum vitae confirm that he is a highly-qualified emergency-medicine physician. Dr. Epstein testified that he is an emergency-medicine specialist rather than a family practitioner, and does not maintain an independent office outside the hospital where he practices. Dr. Epstein conceded on voir dire that the types of medical problems he deals with, as an emergency-medicine physician, are different from those of a family practitioner. This statement may be confirmed by an examination of Dr. Epstein’s vitae revealing his publications on the subjects of brain injury, transfusions, and spinal cord neoplasms, to name a few. Dr. Epstein stated that it is not the intention of the hospital where he practices to have the on-going doctor-patient relationships that a family practitioner has, or to have parents bring in their child for a well-baby checkup. Dr. Epstein testified that the daily reality of practice for emergency-medicine practitioners is to treat people who do not have ordinary financial access to care and are in the emergency departments as a last resort. Dr. Stecker testified that the circumstances under which emergency-room doctors in Hot Springs usually see their patients differs from the circumstances for a family physician. 917 S.W.2d 167 As regards the differences in the localities in which they practice, testimony was given by Dr. Epstein and Dr. Stecker regarding the medical facilities and technology in their respective localities, Panama City, Florida, and Hot Springs. Dr. Epstein estimated the population of Panama City is 80,000. Dr. Stecker estimated the population of Hot Springs is 35,000. On this record, the trial court ruled that Dr. Epstein’s proffered testimony on the standard of care for diagnosing child abuse in Hot Springs was inadmissible. I do not find that the trial court’s decision was made with a discretion improvidently or thoughtlessly exercised and without due consideration. Nazarenko, 313 Ark. 570, 856 S.W.2d 869. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING MARCH 18, 1996 D. Scott Hickam, for appellee Mary Ellen Robbins. Robert L. Brown, Justice. Appellee Mary Ellen Robbins has petitioned for rehearing to clarify that, upon remand of this case, the judgment discharging appellee Robbins with prejudice will not be disturbed. In its appeal of this case, appellant First Commercial Trust Company raised no issues and offered no argument directed at appellee Robbins. Because of this, appellee Robbins withdrew her cross-appeal. The opinion handed down in this case on February 12, 1996, was limited to the issues raised, and those issues pertained only to appellee Rheeta Stecker. Accordingly, the reversal and remand in this case relate solely to appellee Rheeta Stecker. The judgment entered in favor of "appellee Mary Ellen Robbins in Garland County Circuit Court is affirmed.