Preview:

Present:  All the Justices

BELINDA H. LAWSON
OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR.
v.   Record No. 960473                 November 1, 1996

ROBERT W. ELKINS, M.D.

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE
James F. Ingram, Judge

In this medical negligence appeal, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to permit a physician to testify as an expert witness.  
Plaintiff, Belinda H. Lawson, filed a motion for judgment against Dr. Robert W. Elkins, an orthopaedic surgeon.  Plaintiff, who was experiencing pain in her back and leg, says that Dr. Elkins told her that her pain was caused by a herniated disk and that she was "an ideal candidate for a surgical disk excision."  Dr. Elkins recommended that he treat her with a procedure known as chemonucleolysis.  During this procedure, an enzyme is injected into an intervertebral disk.  The enzyme agent, chymopapain, shrinks the disk, thereby relieving pressure on the nerve and alleviating the pain.  Dr. Elkins performed this procedure on the plaintiff, who now asserts that she incurred permanent bodily injury as a result of the procedure.  The defendant filed a grounds of defense denying any breach of duty owed to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sought a pre-trial ruling from the trial court permitting her proposed expert witness, Dr. James R. Jackson, a neurosurgeon, to testify that the defendant breached the standard of care owed to her in finding that she was an appropriate candidate for the chemonucleolysis treatment.  The trial court ruled that:
"Dr. James Jackson may testify as a treating physician based upon his examinations and treatment of the plaintiff but [he] may not testify [on] the standard of care applicable to the defendant in this case insofar as the chemonucleolysis procedure is concerned, the suitability of the plaintiff as a candidate for chemonucleolysis, the effect on the plaintiff of the chemonucleolysis procedure, and whether . . . the defendant deviated from any applicable standard of care in the chemonucleolysis procedure performed on the plaintiff in 1983."  

At trial, the plaintiff renewed her motion to qualify Dr. Jackson as an expert witness.  The trial court denied her motion and, subsequently, granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's evidence because she had no expert testimony to establish either the standard of care that the defendant owed to her or any deviation therefrom.  The plaintiff appeals from the trial court's final order.  
The plaintiff asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to permit Dr. Jackson to testify as an expert witness on the standard of care that the defendant owed to her.  Plaintiff says, "[s]ince the main issue is whether the plaintiff was a candidate for chemonucleolysis, not whether the defendant improperly performed the procedure, a neurosurgeon who is familiar with the standard of care can render an opinion thereon regardless whether he has actually performed the procedure."  
The defendant argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Dr. Jackson to testify as an expert witness on the subject whether the defendant breached the standard of care by recommending the plaintiff as a candidate for the chemonucleolysis procedure.  We agree with the defendant.  
Code

Download 1960473.pdf

Virginia Law