Court Opinion

ID: 9620983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:50:12.115639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:56.773093
License: Public Domain

DAVID GAULTNEY, Justice,
dissenting.
In determining whether an expert is qualified to offer an expert opinion, the trial court serves as the evidentiary gatekeeper. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 553-54, 556-58 (Tex.1995). In cases like this, the legislature has specified that the trial court shall consider whether a medical expert “is actively practicing medicine in rendering medical care services relevant to the claim.”1 It is undisputed that Dr. Bell is not currently performing the type of surgery involved in this claim. It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to rely on a consideration mandated by statute.
Rather than immediately granting the no-evidence summary judgment, the trial court could have provided the plaintiff an opportunity to replace the witness with someone whose expertise is current. See Tex R. Civ. Proc. 166(a)(i). Appellant raised no issue at the trial court or on appeal requesting that relief. I therefore respectfully dissent from the reversal of the trial court’s judgment.

. See Act of May 5, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 140, § 2, sec. 14.01, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 985, 988, repealed by Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 10.09, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 884 (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.401 (Vernon Supp.2005)). References