Case brief summary
In a medical malpractice case, the standard of care is what the medical profession generally would do, not what one individual doctor personally would have done in the same situation.
Facts
Clair Johnson died after a severe reaction to anesthesia during surgery that cut off her oxygen. Her family sued the anesthesiologist and his employer, claiming he should have given her extra oxygen before surgery (called pre-oxygenation) to protect her.
Procedural history
The trial court stopped plaintiffs from asking the defense expert what he personally would have done. The jury sided with the defendants, and both the appeals court and state supreme court upheld that decision.
Issue
Can a plaintiff's lawyer question a defense medical expert on cross examination (questioning by the opposing side) about what the expert personally would have done for the patient, either to prove malpractice or to attack the expert's credibility?
Holding
No. Questions about what the expert personally would have done are not relevant either to prove a violation of the standard of care or to attack the expert's credibility, so the trial court was right to block them.
Reasoning
The standard of care depends on general medical practice, not one doctor's personal choice. So asking what the expert would personally do doesn't matter, and it can't be used to challenge his credibility either.
Opinions
Majority (Sears): Personal treatment preferences of an expert witness are irrelevant to the legal standard of care and cannot be used to challenge the expert's credibility either.
Dissent (Carley): Cross examination should be given wide latitude, and questioning the expert's personal practices could reveal inconsistencies that genuinely undermine his credibility and deserved to be allowed.