The Western Section of the Tennessee Court of Appeals just issued a new opinion relating to the proper qualifications of a plaintiff's expert in a medical malpractice case. In this case, the plaintiff's expert did not practice in the same area as the defendants, which is not per se fatal to this type of claim. However, the opinion stresses the importance of an expert being familiar with the defendants' area of practice. The Court found that the plaintiff's expert was not familiar with the defendants' area of practice and granted summary judgment to the defendants.
The style of the case is McDaniel v. Rustom, No. W2008-00674-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 5, 2009).
Here's the link to the opinion:
No comments:
Post a Comment