noting the “similar community” standard “encompasses more than mere physician skill and training” and includes variations in facilities, equipment, funding, and also “the physical and financial environment”
How later courts described this case
- noting the “similar community” standard “encompasses more than mere physician skill and training” and includes variations in facilities, equipment, funding, and also “the physical and financial environment”
- noting the court in that case refused to allow an expert to testify at trial in a manner that would have contradicted the expert’s deposition testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GREENE, Judge,
concurring in the result.
I fully agree with Judge McCullough that our General Assembly has rejected the use of a regional or national standard of care for judging the care provided by healthcare professionals to their patients. N.C.G.S. § 90-21.12 (1999). Instead, in North Carolina, healthcare professionals are held to a standard of care practiced among other members of their profession (1) in the same or a similar community, (2) with similar training, and (3) with similar experience. Id. The rationale for focusing on the standard of practice in the same or a similar community, as opposed to a national standard, is that available medical resources, i.e., the conditions, facilities, and equipment available to a healthcare professional, may differ from community to community. See David W. Louisell & Harold Williams, 1 Medical Malpractice § 8.04, at 8-36.4 (2001); Tucker v. Meis, 127 N.C. App. 197, 199 , 487 S.E.2d 827, 829 (1997) (noting the “same or similar community” standard “allows for consideration of the effect that variations in facilities, equipment, funding, etc., . . . might have on the standard of care”). Thus, section 90-21.12 permits a physician, otherwise qualified under Rule 702 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, to testify regarding the applicable standard of care in a medical malpractice case when that physician is familiar with the experience and training of the defendant and either (1) the physician is familiar with the standard of care in the defendant’s community, or (2) the physician is familiar with the medical resources available in *214 the defendant’s community and is familiar with the standard of care in other communities having access to similar resources.
In this case, Dr. Chauhan did not testify that he was familiar with defendants’ training, experience, or the standard of care practiced in defendants’ community. Additionally, Dr. Chauhan did not testify he was familiar with the resources available in defendants’ community as well as the standard of care practiced in communities with similar resources. Thus, Dr. Chauhan’s testimony was not sufficient to establish the applicable standard of care in this case. Accordingly, for the reasons herein I would affirm the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of defendants.