Court Opinion

ID: 9528875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:44:56.048215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:26.373894
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in affirming the judgment on the evidence granted in favor of Dr. Man-ganhas since there was no evidence adduced as to the proper medical standards for disclosure applicable to his role in the treatment of Mr. Searcy.
With respect to Dr. Vandertoll, however, I must disagree even though no other expert medical witness testified as to the proper standard of care. Dr. Vandertoll was, himself, questioned extensively concerning the appropriate standards for disclosure in the community at the time. He testified that he was unfamiliar with them. Admittedly, his further testimony was somewhat ambiguous and was possibly sub*146ject to objection on its responsiveness. The reason for this was that counsel would inquire about some aspect of the community standard and the doctor would typically respond with what he personally did in that circumstance. Nevertheless, the jury could have considered this a testimonial mannerism and that the doctor’s evidence did disclose the appropriate standard. While Dr. Vandertoll’s testimony thus, in effect, attempted to establish at one and the same time the appropriate standard and his compliance with it, there remained a question for the jury. The question existed because Mr. Searcy, contradicted Vandertoll’s account of what and when he was told. I would therefore reverse the judgment as to Dr. Vandertoll and remand for a new trial.