concluding that board certified internal medicine physician who was professor of cardiology and previously worked in emergency room was qualified to give expert testimony in wrongful death action involving treatment of patient by emergency room physician, and observing that if the defendant health care provider “had wanted to challenge the veracity of [the expert’s] credentials it could have done so through cross- examination”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that board certified internal medicine physician who was professor of cardiology and previously worked in emergency room was qualified to give expert testimony in wrongful death action involving treatment of patient by emergency room physician, and observing that if the defendant health care provider “had wanted to challenge the veracity of [the expert’s] credentials it could have done so through cross- examination”
- holding that whether a witness is qualified to state an opinion is within the discretion of the trial court and that its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion
- stating that “[t]his Court has complete authority to determine an expert’s qualifications pursuant to its constitutional rule-making authority.”
- finding W.Va. Code, 55-7B-7, which outlined the qualifications of an expert in a medical malpractice case, was superseded by W.Va. R. Evid. 702
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEELY, Acting Chief Justice,
dissenting.
(Filed Dec. 12, 1994)
I dissent to the holding of Syllabus Point 6 for reasons set forth in my dissent in Gilman v. Choi 185 W.Va. at 182, 406 S.E.2d at 205 (1990).