AVIVI v. CENTROMEDICOURGENTEMEDICALCENTER
On defendants' motion for summary judgment in medical malpractice action, trial court erred in excluding declaration of plaintiff's expert on ground that expert did not say he was familiar with the standard of care in Southern California; appropriate test for expert qualification in ordinary medical malpractice actions is whether the expert is familiar with circumstances similar to those of the parties. Trial court abused its discretion by excluding opinion of physician who examined plaintiff in her home country that defendants' treatment of plaintiff's fractured wrist breached relevant standard of care where witness declared he had practiced orthopedics for 27 years, had treated thousands of patients with injuries similar to plaintiff's, had numerous contacts with doctors from the United States regarding treatment of injuries similar to plaintiff's, had reviewed many publications on treatment of fractures in the United States, and that treating a fracture would be handled similarly in his country as in the United States.
Comments on AVIVI v. CENTROMEDICOURGENTEMEDICALCENTER