Cunningham v. Montgomery, 143 Or App 171, rev den, 324 Or 487 (1996).
Patient brought a medical malpractice action against a dentist, alleging that the dentist negligently administered nitrous oxide causing patient to suffer hypoxia and cognitive defects. The trial court improperly excluded the testimony of the patient’s expert as to medical causation of the patient’s injuries on the grounds that the expert, a neuropsychologist, was not a medical doctor. OEC 702 does not require that an expert witness on a medical subject be licensed to practice medicine. A person may be qualified as an expert where that person has specialized training and experience that could assist the jury. The field of specialization of a competent medical witness affects the weight to be given to the testimony, not its admissibility.
Burton v. Rogue Valley Medical Center, 122 Or App 22, rev den, 318 Or 24 (1993).
Plaintiff brought a wrongful death action on behalf of his decedent who suffered from hereditary bleeding disease and died following surgery at the defendant hospital. Defendant moved for summary judgment supported by the affidavit of the treating physician that the care and treatment he rendered met the standard of care in the community. Plaintiff responded with an affidavit of decedent’s stepfather, a licensed physician in Oregon and Idaho, who stated he was "very familiar" with the hereditary disease and its treatment because his wife has the disease and that defendant’s care and treatment did not meet the standard. The trial court granted summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court of Appeals held that a licensed physician who states he is very familiar with the medical treatment at issue is competent to render an opinion even if the physician is not a specialist in the particular area. The affidavit testimony demonstrated that the plaintiff’s expert had the necessary skill and knowledge to form an intelligent conclusion about decedent’s condition and was familiar with applicable community standard. Therefore, plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact to defeat the summary judgment motion.
Generally, in a medical malpractice case, an expert is required to establish the standard of care because most jurors lack the knowledge required to evaluate a physician’s conduct against the standard of care.
Creasy v. Hogan, 292 Or 154 (1981).
Plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against a podiatrist who had performed bunion surgery on both of plaintiff’s feet. Trial court correctly allowed expert medical opinion testimony from orthopedic surgeons regarding the podiatrist’s care of plaintiff. Where the principles, techniques, methods, practices or procedures of one medical branch are identical or generally the same as another branch, opinion evidence from a practitioner of one branch is admissible on a point concerning matters in another branch. Medical practitioners are entitled to have their treatment of a patient tested by the principles of the school of medicine to which they belong. Foundation must be laid showing an "appropriate similarity in procedures or techniques" between the two branches.
Expert testimony regarding the witness’s knowledge of the "standard of care" or the "standard of skill" is not proper. Expert witness should testify to his or her knowledge of the methods of customary and proper medical treatment in same or similar community.
EXPERT
TESTIMONY
FAILURE
TO WARN