Dubois v. Brantley

The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the medical malpractice plaintiffs' witness did not qualify as an expert under Rule 702, as he had an appropriate level of knowledge in performing the procedure at issue to give an opinion about the defendant's negligence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case presents a question about the qualification of expert witnesses under OCGA § 24-7-702 “Rule 702″, specifically, what sort of experience is required of a practicing surgeon who is offered as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case to opine that another surgeon breached the applicable standard of medical care in the course of performing a surgical procedure. In Brantley v. Dubois, 327 Ga. App. 14 755 SE2d 351 2014, the Court of Appeals held that a surgeon was not qualified as a matter of law under Rule 702 c 2 A to give expert testimony about negligence in connection with a laparoscopic procedure to repair an umbilical hernia because he had not performed more than one laparoscopic procedure to repair an umbilical hernia in the last five years, notwithstanding that the surgeon had performed many other abdominal laparoscopic procedures during that time. We issued a writ of certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals understood Rule 702 c 2 A correctly, and we now conclude that it did not. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

1. David Dubois was diagnosed with an umbilical hernia, and in March 2011, he underwent a laparoscopic procedure to repair it. Dr. Damon Brantley performed the laparoscopic procedure at a Southeast Georgia Health System hospital in Camden County, and within hours, Dubois was discharged. A couple of days later, however, Dubois returned to the hospital with a fever and other symptoms, and he soon was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis. An exploratory laparotomy revealed that his pancreas had been punctured, which was the likely cause of the pancreatitis. In the days that followed, additional complications arose, including respiratory failure, acute renal failure, and sepsis. Dubois survived these complications, but he spent several days in a coma, was hospitalized in intensive care for almost a month, and had to undergo a number of additional surgeries to repair the damage to his pancreas.

Dubois v. Brantley

The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the medical malpractice plaintiffs' witness did not qualify as an expert under Rule 702, as he had an appropriate level of knowledge in performing the procedure at issue to give an opinion about the defendant's negligence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report