finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court allowed a psychiatrist to testify as to the standard of care for a physician specializing in internal medicine and cardiology, where the psychiatrist taught classes on the standard of care applicable to the defendant at a medical school
How later courts described this case
- finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court allowed a psychiatrist to testify as to the standard of care for a physician specializing in internal medicine and cardiology, where the psychiatrist taught classes on the standard of care applicable to the defendant at a medical school
- stating that the defendant’s objections to the expert’s testimony “must go more to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility”
- proffered expert was a psychiatrist
- "[I]n medical malpractice cases, negligence and causation are ordinarily required to be proved by expert medical testimony."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
A courteous petition to rehear has been filed by counsel for plaintiff. First, it is insisted a jury question exists as to whether the action of the defendant in countermanding certain of the hospital’s instructions constituted a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. We held no jury question existed on that issue and adhere to that *713 holding. Second, it is suggested that on remand the plaintiff should be able to again proceed against the defendant upon all theories of liability and not be limited as required by our opinion. This seems a rather novel suggestion to us and to acquiesce in it would place this Court and the Trial Court in a most peculiar posture. This case was never submitted to a jury. The matter was determined by the Trial Judge as a matter of law after plaintiff's proof was presented. We have held that, in part, the Trial Judge was correct as a matter of law in dismissing any claim based on some of the theories of the plaintiff. On those issues which we have determined the Trial Judge acted correctly in dismissing, the plaintiff wants a retrial. We know of no law or logic that would support our instruction to the Trial Judge to retry the issues in which he committed no error in dismissing and which action we affirmed.
Accordingly, the Petition to Rehear is denied.