Issue: Wisconsin law that supports the admissibility of the expert testimony of a urologist to establish the standard of care of a general surgeon performing a urologic procedure.
|Area of Law:||Personal Injury & Negligence|
|Keywords:||Expert testimony; Medical malpractice; Urologic procedure|
|Cited Cases:||182 F. Supp. 393; 418 N.W.2d 795; 464 A.2d 938; 142 Wis. 2d 404; 256 Wis. 417; 710 N.W.2d 726; 303 S.W.3d 786; 138 Wis. 2d 131; 289 Wis. 2d 550; 406 N.W.2d 156; 41 N.W.2d 620; 160 Wn. App. 512; 248 P.3d 136|
- Snapp v. Jean-Claude, 289 Wis. 2d 550, 710 N.W.2d 726 (Ct. App. 2006):
“[T]o be eligible to testify as to the possible negligence of a particular doctor, an expert need not necessarily practice in the same specialty as the doctor whose care he or she is testifying about.” Overlap between the expert’s field and the defendant’s field is one consideration supporting the qualification of the expert, so long as the expert demonstrates knowledge and familiarity with the defendant’s field.
- Morrill v. Komasinski, 256 Wis. 417, 41 N.W.2d 620 (1950):
Because the basic sciences of diagnosis, pathology, physiology, and anatomy are common among osteopaths and allopaths, osteopathic surgeon was qualified to testify on standard of care owed by allopath.
- Kerkman v. Hintz, 138 Wis. 2d 131, 406 N.W.2d 156 (Ct. App. 1987), rev’d in part on other grounds, 142 Wis. 2d 404, 418 N.W.2d 795 (1988).
“[A] medical doctor’s testimony as to a chiropractor’s performance under the chiropractic standard of care may be relevant, and therefore admissible, if there is a sufficient factual showing that the medical witness is qualified by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” to give the required opinion.”
- Peterson v. Carter, 182 F. Supp. 393 (W.D. […]