Bryant v. Sampson Memorial Hospital

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Bryant v. Sampson Memorial Hospital

323 S.E.2d 478, 72 N.C. App. 203, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 4006

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 28, 1984

Docket844SC289

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 323 S.E.2d 478 (Bryant v. Sampson Memorial Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bryant v. Sampson Memorial Hospital, 323 S.E.2d 478, 72 N.C. App. 203, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 4006 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

We hold it was error to exclude the testimony of Dr. Harris and it was error to allow the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court would not allow Dr. Harris to testify as an expert on the proper treatment in Sampson County of the decubitus ulcers of plaintiffs intestate because it felt a pathologist is not an expert in the general practice of medicine. This was error. An expert witness is one who through study or experience or both is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on a particular subject. See Brandis on N.C. Evidence, 2nd Rev. Ed., § 133. We believe that a medical doctor of whatever specialty is better able to form an opinion as to medical treatment than the laymen who ordinarily comprise juries. Dr. Harris’ testimony should have been admitted.

If Dr. Harris’ testimony had been admitted there would have been evidence that the proper treatment for the deceased’s ulcers would include turning her at regular intervals which was not done and that the ulcers became worse and contributed to her death. This would have been evidence from which a jury could find that the negligence of the defendant’s agents was a proximate cause of injury and death to plaintiffs intestate.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Hedrick and Hill concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WEBB, Judge.

We hold it was error to exclude the testimony of Dr. Harris and it was error to allow the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court would not allow Dr. Harris to testify as an expert on the proper treatment in Sampson County of the decubitus ulcers of plaintiffs intestate because it felt a pathologist is not an expert in the general practice of medicine. This was error. An expert witness is one who through study or experience or both is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on a particular subject. See Brandis on N.C. Evidence, 2nd Rev. Ed., § 133. We believe that a medical doctor of whatever specialty is better able to form an opinion as to medical treatment than the laymen who ordinarily comprise juries. Dr. Harris’ testimony should have been admitted.

If Dr. Harris’ testimony had been admitted there would have been evidence that the proper treatment for the deceased’s ulcers would include turning her at regular intervals which was not done and that the ulcers became worse and contributed to her death. This would have been evidence from which a jury could find that the negligence of the defendant’s agents was a proximate cause of injury and death to plaintiffs intestate.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges Hedrick and Hill concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 S.E.2d 478, 72 N.C. App. 203, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 4006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-sampson-memorial-hospital-ncctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack