TortsMedical malpracticeExpert testimonymedical malpracticeexpert witnesssame specialty not requiredfield of alleged malpracticemotion in limine
Facts
The Bujas alleged that negligent management of Brenda Buja's labor and delivery caused Kayla Buja's oxygen deprivation injuries. The defendant physicians were residents in family practice who participated in Brenda's labor and delivery, and the alleged malpractice occurred during obstetrical care. To prove malpractice, the Bujas offered an expert who was board certified in obstetrics and had extensive knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education in that field. The trial justice excluded the expert because he was not an expert in family practice, the defendants' specialty.
Issue
In a medical malpractice action, may an expert testify about the standard of care when the expert is qualified in the field where the alleged malpractice occurred but does not practice in the same specialty as the defendant physicians?
Rule
Under G.L. 1956 § 9-19-41, an expert in a medical malpractice case is qualified if he or she has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the field of the alleged malpractice. The statute does not require that the expert be board certified in, trained in, or practicing the same medical specialty as the defendant physician.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
At a hospital in Providence, Dr. Nina Paredes, a board-certified internist, inserted a central venous line during a critical-care admission. The patient later sued, alleging negligent placement of the line, and offered Dr. Samuel Velez, an anesthesiologist from Boston who regularly places central lines and teaches that procedure to residents.
Should the court exclude Dr. Velez solely because he is not an internist?
Explanation. The controlling rule focuses on the field of the alleged malpractice, not the defendant physician's specialty. If the alleged negligence concerns central-line placement and the proposed expert is qualified in that field through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, the testimony is admissible. A same-specialty requirement is not imposed, and any specialty difference goes to weight rather than admissibility. (Derived from Buja v. Morningstar (n.d.).)