Ronald Stephen Satterfield, Sr. v. Gary Long & Richard Smith

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: October 13, 1999
• Docket: 03A01-9805-CV-00162
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

RONALD STEPHEN SATTERFIELD, ) C/A NO. 03A01-9805-CV-00162 FILED October 13, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk SR., ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) )

) v. ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE ) KNOX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ) ) ) ) GARY LONG and ) RICHARD M. SMITH, ) ) HONORABLE DALE C. WORKMAN, Defendants-Appellants.) JUDGE

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the majority opinion authored by Judge

Goddard. I write separately to disassociate myself from the

following statement in the opinion: “It is

well-settled...that expert opinions must be based upon a

reasonable degree of certainty.” I adhere to the position

expressed by me in the case of Reel v. Crawley, C/A No.

03A01-9402-CV-00071, 1994 WL 399566 (Tenn.App. E.S., filed at

Page 1 Knoxville August 2, 1994) (Susano, concurring opinion). In

that case, I opined that an “expert’s testimony that the nexus

between an event and an injury is probable or, stated a

different way, more likely than not, is all that is or should

be required.” Having said this, I hasten to add that I agree

with the majority’s conclusion that Dr. Justice’s testimony

was speculative and that the trial court acted within its

discretion in refusing to allow it into evidence.

_____________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.

Page 2