Blake v. Avedikian
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | 412 Mass. 481,590 N.E.2d 183 |
| Parties | Kathleen BLAKE, v. Suzanne AVEDIKIAN et al. 1 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1992 |
Page 183
v.
Suzanne AVEDIKIAN et al. 1
Middlesex.
Decided April 16, 1992.
Page 184
[412 Mass. 482] Evan T. Lawson, Boston, for plaintiff.
Terrance J. Hamilton, Boston, for defendants.
Before [412 Mass. 481] LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, NOLAN, LYNCH and GREANEY, JJ.
[412 Mass. 482] LYNCH, Justice.
On the plaintiff's complaint, alleging dental malpractice, a malpractice tribunal (G.L. c. 231, § 60B [1990 ed.] ) determined that there was not sufficient evidence to raise a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and motion to strike the decision of the tribunal were denied. The Superior Court dismissed her complaint after she failed to post the required bond, and the plaintiff appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to Appeals Court Rule 1:28. 31 Mass.App.Ct. 1103, 575 N.E.2d 783 (1991). We granted the plaintiff's application for further appellate review, and now reverse the judgment with respect to Dr. Avedikian, but affirm the judgment with respect to Dr. Killilea.
The defendants argue that the tribunal's determination was correct because the plaintiff's offer of proof was insufficient. "A plaintiff's offer of proof as to negligence will prevail before a malpractice tribunal ... (1) if a doctor-patient relationship is shown, (2) if there is evidence that the doctor's performance did not conform to good medical practice, and (3) if damage resulted therefrom." Kapp v. Ballantine, 380 Mass. 186, 193, 402 N.E.2d 463 (1980). The defendants argue that: the plaintiff failed to establish the qualifications of her proffered expert; the expert's opinion letter failed to identify any standards of dental practice to which the defendants' performance did not conform; and that the plaintiff failed to establish a doctor-patient relationship with Dr. Killilea.
1. Qualification of expert. The standard for admission of expert testimony before a medical malpractice tribunal is [412 Mass. 483] "extremely lenient," Halley v. Birbiglia, 390 Mass. 540, 543 n. 4, 458 N.E.2d 710 (1983).
"In our view, the tribunal should give consideration to the proffered opinion of an expert if the offer of proof is sufficient to show that a trial judge in his discretion might properly rule that the qualifications of the witness are sufficient [emphasis in original]. Thus, the opinions
Page 185
of an expert are to be received even if the tribunal (or its presiding judge) might decide that if the exercise of discretion were in its province, it would not accept the expert as qualified" (emphasis added). Kapp v. Ballantine, 380 Mass. 186, 192, 402 N.E.2d 463 (1980). Furthermore, we note that any challenge to the credentials of an expert should not be made for the first time on appeal. Halley v. Birbiglia, supra. 2The defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to establish her proffered expert as qualified to give an opinion because no information was supplied as to the expert's education, training, knowledge, or professional experience. We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambley v. Kameny, 96-P-59
...medically unsound. It was not the tribunal's function to appraise the weight or credibility of such evidence. Blake v. Avedikian, 412 Mass. 481, 483, 590 N.E.2d 183 Even without Seckler's acknowledgment of misdiagnosis, Shapse's twelve-page, single-spaced opinion (to which was attached his ......
-
Feliciano v. Attanucci, 17-P-1568
...dismissal.We summarize the evidence in the plaintiff's offer of proof in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Blake v. Avedikian, 412 Mass. 481, 484, 590 N.E.2d 183 (1992), citing Kopycinski v. Aserkoff, 410 Mass. 410, 415, 417-418 (1991). Feliciano, a healthy twenty-nine year old mot......
-
Commonwealth v. Baxter, 18-P-1225.
...(1998) (challenges to the validity of expert conclusions "go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence"); Blake v. Avedikian, 412 Mass. 481, 483, 590 N.E.2d 183 (1992) ("the extent of [an expert's] training and experience would bear only on the weight that should be given to his......
-
Lavina v. Satin, SUCV2013-01012-C
...well taken the criticisms might be, they will not foreclose her qualification as a trial expert altogether. See Blake v. Avedikian, 412 Mass. 481, 483, 590 N.E.2d 183 (1992) (" the extent of [an expert's] training and experience would bear only on the weight that should be given to his test......