Smith v. Whitmer
Decision Date | 15 July 2003 |
Docket Number | No. COA02-1290.,COA02-1290. |
Citation | 582 S.E.2d 669,159 NC App. 192 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Selby SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Gilbert G. WHITMER, M.D., and Carolina Regional Orthopaedics, Defendants. |
Anderson Law Firm by Michael J. Anderson, Wilson, for plaintiff-appellant.
Patterson, Dilthey, Clay & Bryson, L.L.P. by Mark E. Anderson and Heather R. Waddell, Raleigh, for defendants-appellees.
Selby Smith ("plaintiff") appeals from orders of the trial court excluding plaintiff's expert witness and granting summary judgment in favor of Gilbert G. Whitmer, M.D. ("Dr. Whitmer") and Carolina Regional Orthopaedics ("CRO") (collectively, "defendants"). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the orders of the trial court.
The pertinent facts of the instant appeal are as follows: On 6 December 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants in Nash County Superior Court, alleging that defendants were negligent in their medical treatment of plaintiff, resulting in permanent injury to plaintiff's left wrist. The complaint further alleged that CRO was a health care facility with its principal place of business in Nash County, and that Dr. Whitmer was an orthopedic surgeon and partner in the practice.
On 3 June 2002, defendants filed a motion to exclude Dr. Heiman's testimony on the grounds that he was not qualified to testify as to the relevant standard of care. Upon consideration of Dr. Heiman's testimony, the trial court agreed with defendants and granted the motion to exclude his testimony. Because Dr. Heiman was plaintiff's sole expert witness, the trial court further granted a motion made by defendants for summary judgment. The trial court accordingly entered orders excluding Dr. Heiman's testimony and granting summary judgment to defendants. From the orders of the trial court, plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Heiman's testimony and consequently, in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the orders of the trial court.
"In a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must show (1) the applicable standard of care; (2) a breach of such standard of care by the defendant; (3) the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were proximately caused by such breach; and (4) the damages resulting to the plaintiff." Weatherford v. Glassman, 129 N.C.App. 618, 621, 500 S.E.2d 466, 468 (1998). Section 90-21.12 of the North Carolina General Statutes prescribes the appropriate standard of care in a medical malpractice action:
In any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical, dental, or other health care, the defendant shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of the facts is satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that the care of such health care provider was not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.12 (2001) (emphasis added). Because questions regarding the standard of care for health care professionals ordinarily require highly specialized knowledge, the plaintiff must establish the relevant standard of care through expert testimony. See Heatherly v. Industrial Health Council, 130 N.C.App. 616, 625, 504 S.E.2d 102, 108 (1998); Weatherford, 129 N.C.App. at 621,500 S.E.2d at 468; see also N.C. Gen.Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(a) (2001). Further, the standard of care must be established by other practitioners in the particular field of practice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crocker v. Roethling
...expert testimony. Ballance v. Wentz, 286 N.C. 294, 302, 210 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1974) (citation omitted); Smith v. Whitmer, 159 N.C.App. 192, 195, 582 S.E.2d 669, 671-72 (2003) (citations omitted). When plaintiffs have introduced evidence from an expert stating that the defendant doctor did no......
-
Day v. Brant
...expert testimony.’ ” Billings v. Rosenstein, 174 N.C.App. 191, 194, 619 S.E.2d 922, 924 (2005) (quoting Smith v. Whitmer, 159 N.C.App. 192, 195, 582 S.E.2d 669, 671–72 (2003)). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90–21.12 (2009) sets out the standard of care applicable in a medical malpractice action: In any ......
-
Estate of Savino v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.
...the plaintiff must establish the relevant standard of care through expert testimony." Smith v. Whitmer , 159 N.C. App. 192, 195, 582 S.E.2d 669, 671-72 (2003).In this case, plaintiff presented Dr. Dan Michael Mayer as an expert to testify regarding the standard of care for medical negligenc......
-
Day v. Brant
...testimony.’ ” Billings v. Rosenstein, 174 N.C.App. 191, 194, 619 S.E.2d 922, 924 (2005) (quoting Smith v. Whitmer, 159 N.C.App. 192, 195, 582 S.E.2d 669, 671-72 (2003)), disc. review denied, --- N.C. ----, 630 S.E.2d 664 (2006). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 90-21.12 (2009) sets out the standard of care......