Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Georgia v. Casey

A medical expert's opinion derived from applying his medical knowledge and experience with previous cases to plaintiff's medical records and deposition testimony was admissible.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of a motion to exclude expert testimony filed by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia “BOR” d/b/a the Medical College of Georgia “MCG” and Dr. Paul C. Houle collectively “the Appellants” in an action alleging assault on the part of Houle and various negligence claims against Houle and BOR by David Casey.1 On appeal, the Appellants contend that the trial court erred by denying their motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Allen E. Rubenstein under OCGA §b.2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. “The issue of the admissibility or exclusion of expert testimony rests in the broad discretion of the court, and consequently, the trial court’s ruling thereon cannot be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”3

The record shows that on October 17, 2000, Casey underwent a C4-C7 laminectomy, a procedure to fuse parts of his spinal column together. While in recovery, Dr. Houle responded to Casey’s room to investigate his complaints of pain. Dr. Houle attempted to perform a grip test, and he contended that Casey squeezed his fingers with such force that Houle was afraid they would break. Dr. Houle deposed that he “pulled away as hard as he could to get away from Casey.” Casey deposed that he barely touched Dr. Houle’s fingers, when Houle became upset and threw Casey’s arm back. Casey explained that while he had been in pain prior to his encounter with Dr. Houle, the pain was excruciating afterward. Dr. Houle then refused to treat Casey further and called another doctor to assess him.

Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Georgia v. Casey

A medical expert's opinion derived from applying his medical knowledge and experience with previous cases to plaintiff's medical records and deposition testimony was admissible.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report