Picture of John Day

§47.12 Causation Expert Need Not Know Standard of Care

The Case: Farley v. Oak Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C., 2009 WL 2474742 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2009).

The Basic Facts : Plaintiffs prevailed in a medical negligence jury trial against several defendants. Numerous issues were raised on appeal, including whether a plaintiff's expert on the issue of causation needed to know the standard of care in the community where the negligence occurred or a similar community (the "locality rule").

The Bottom Line:

  • "We move now to the question of whether a medical causation expert must also establish familiarity with the standard a care to be qualified. The Defendants rely on Payne v. Caldwell, 796 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1990), for the proposition that a causation expert must establish familiarity with the standard of care. The actual holding in Payne was that 'the element of proximate cause is included [in Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(a)] and witnesses, to be competent to testify on the issue, must meet the licensing and geographical requirements of [Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115 (b)].' Payne, 796 S.W.2d at 143. It is not the holding that the Defendants rely on, but rather language used by the court in rejecting the policy argument that it did not make logical sense to require a causation expert to be from a contiguous state. '[W]e see nothing unusual or illogical in the inclusion of all three elements in the limitations on competency of witnesses set forth in Section (b). The proof of each element in a medical malpractice action is so entwined that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a witness to testify on the issue of causation without commenting, either expressly or tacitly, on the standard of care or whether or not it was breached.'" 2009 WL 2474742 at *12.
  • "Fortunately, we are not the first panel to have considered the impact of Payne on a "causation only" expert. In Russell v. Pakkala, No. 02A01-9703-CV-00053, 1998 WL 10212 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed Jan 14, 1998), the testimony of Dr. Raymond Hawkins was at issue. This Court quoted the language from Payne that the Defendants rely on but noted, "[t]he Court's holding, however, was limited to requiring witnesses testifying on causation to meet the requirements of Section (b) [of the statute]." Russell, 1998 WL 10212 at n.1. The Russell court's analysis was as follows:
    However, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-26-115 (a)(3), there is no requirement that the medical expert be familiar with the standard for acceptable medical practice in the relevant community in order to testify as to causation. Regarding causation, the statute states:

    (a) In a malpractice action, the claimant shall have the burden of proving by evidence as provided by subsection (b):

    (3) as a proximate result of the defendant's negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred.

    (b) No person in a health care profession requiring licensure under the laws of this state shall be competent to testify in any court of law to establish the facts required to be established by subsection (a) unless he was licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state a profession or speciality which would make his expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case and had practiced this profession or speciality in one of these states during the year preceding the date that the alleged injury or wrongful act occurred. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(a)(3) and (b) (1980 & Supp. 1997).

    The medical expert "must meet the licensing and geographic requirements of Section (b)" in order to be competent to testify as to causation. Payne v. Caldwell, 796 S.W.2d 142, 143 (Tenn. 1990). Dr. Hawkins testified that he was licensed to practice medicine in Tennessee and that he had practiced in Tennessee as a general surgeon for over twenty years. Thus, under the statute he was competent to testify to establish causation under subsection (a)(3), but not negligence under subsections (a)(1) and (2).
    Id. at 5. We agree completely with the approach taken in Russell. The quoted language from Payne concerning the 'entwined' nature of causation and standard of care testimony is true enough, but should not be read to impose requirements not imposed by the language of the statute. This is especially true given that Payne based its holding on the 'clarity' of the statute. 796 S.W.2d at 143. We hold that a causation expert who does not testify on the standard of care is not required to establish familiarity with the standard of care." Id. at *13.

After an accident, many injury victims and their families want more information on the accident and their legal rights. Consequently, many of them have found their way to these pages. While we are happy you are here, please understand Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law was written to be a quick, invaluable reference for Tennessee tort lawyers. While the book provides the leading case for more than 300 tort law subjects and thousands of related case citations, it is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Rather than researching these legal issues alone, we urge you to contact one of our award-winning lawyers who can sit down with you, review your case, answer your questions and clearly explain your rights and your options in a no-cost, no-obligation consultation. Our experienced attorneys handle all personal injury and wrongful death cases on a contingency basis, so we only get paid if we win. If for any reason you are unable to come to our office, we will gladly come to you.

To schedule an appointment, contact us online or call us at 615-742-4880 or toll-free at 866-812-8787.



The foregoing is an excerpt from Day on Torts: Leading Cases in Tennessee Tort Law, published by John A. Day, Civil Trial Specialist, Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, recipient of Best Lawyers in America recognition, Martindale-Hubbell AV® Preeminent™ rated attorney, and Top 100 Tennessee Mid-South Super Lawyers designee. Read John’s full bio here.

To order a copy of the book, visit www.dayontortsbook.com. John also blogs regularly on key issues for tort lawyers. To subscribe to the Day on Torts blog, visit www.dayontorts.com.

Client Reviews
Everything was great. You guys are a great representative. I was satisfied with everything. Truly appreciate John Day and his hard-working staff.
★★★★★
We thought that you did an excellent job in representing us in our lawsuit. We would recommend you to anyone. Mitch Deese
★★★★★
The Law Offices of John Day is, without a doubt, the best in Nashville! They treated me with the utmost respect and tended to my every need. No question went unanswered. I was always kept informed of every step in the process. I received phenomenal results; I couldn't ask for more. I would definitely hire the Law Offices of John Day again. Anthony Santiago
★★★★★
I would definitely recommend to anyone to hire John Day's law firm because everyone was helpful, made everything clear and got the job done. I am satisfied with how my case was handled. June Keomahavong
★★★★★
It's been a long battle but this firm has been very efficient and has done a remarkable job for me! I highly recommend them to anyone needing legal assistance. Everyone has always been very kind and kept me informed of all actions promptly. Linda Bush
★★★★★
I had a great experience with the Law Offices of John Day. The staff was very accommodating, and my phone calls/emails were always responded to in a timely manner. They made the entire process very easy and stress-free for me, and I had confidence that my case was in good hands. I am very happy with the results, and I highly recommend! Casey Hutchinson
★★★★★