stating that "the test of admissibility is whether a particular witness offered as an expert will aid the trier of fact in the search of the truth, not whether the expert witness is the best witness on the subject"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "the test of admissibility is whether a particular witness offered as an expert will aid the trier of fact in the search of the truth, not whether the expert witness is the best witness on the subject"
- finding an expert in radiology and neuroradiology qualified to testify as to the malpractice of an orthopedic surgeon in reading of diagnostic images: “[the expert radiologist] worked closely with and trained orthopedic surgeons, used the same diagnostic technology as [defendant], and demonstrated knowledge of the standard used by surgeons in reviewing diagnostic images and arriving at a decision to perform surgery.”
- allowing physician specializing in neurology and psychiatry to testify as to standard of care for orthopedic surgeon in unnecessary surgery case where the expert, "demonstrated a knowledge of the standards or procedures generally used by members of the defendant's profession in arriving at a decision to perform back surgery;
- stating that the expert witness does not need to be the best witness on the subject in order to qualify as an expert witness
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Shade v. Bleser, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2005), 2005 Ohio 6544 (2005)
{¶ 21} We disagree with Dr. Bleser and Bellbrook thatIshler and Watkins compel a different result.
The opinion
Herbert, J.,
dissenting. I dissent because I believe that our former eases should be modified! to simplify the test for commencement of the running of the statute of limitations by deleting the phrase “at the latest,” and because, upon the state of this record, I believe that the question of the termination of the physician-patient relationship should have been submitted to the jury.