Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group
681 S.E.2d 152 (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice action, evidence of a testifying medical expert's personal practices is admissible as both substantive evidence of the standard of care and for the purpose of impeaching the expert's credibility. This rule overturns the prior precedent established in Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assocs., 275 Ga. 240 (2002).
Facts:
- In May 1998, Daphyne Condra sought treatment from Dr. James Chappuis for back, neck, and arm pain.
- Dr. Chappuis prescribed two consecutive 30-day regimens of the drug Tegretol.
- During her second course of the medication, Condra developed severe symptoms, including leg cramping and shortness of breath.
- Condra was subsequently hospitalized and diagnosed with aplastic anemia, a rare and serious bone marrow disease.
- The plaintiffs' theory of negligence was that Dr. Chappuis failed to conduct blood count monitoring during Tegretol therapy to detect potential adverse reactions.
- During pre-trial discovery, the defendants' expert witness, Dr. Richard Franco, deposed that it was his own usual practice to conduct blood count monitoring when he prescribed Tegretol.
Procedural Posture:
- Daphyne Condra and her husband sued Dr. Chappuis and his medical group in a Georgia trial court for medical malpractice.
- Before trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine to prohibit the plaintiffs from inquiring into the personal practices of the defense's expert witnesses.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, excluding the evidence.
- Following trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding it was bound by the precedent set in Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assocs.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia, the state's highest court, granted the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a medical expert's personal practices, which may differ from their testimony about the generally accepted standard of care, admissible at trial for substantive and impeachment purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunstein, Presiding Justice
Yes. Evidence regarding an expert witness's personal practices is admissible both as substantive evidence and to impeach the expert's opinion regarding the applicable standard of care. The court overruled its prior decision in Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assocs., holding it was no longer viable primarily due to the 2005 enactment of OCGA § 24-9-67.1. This statute places a new emphasis on a medical expert's 'actual professional knowledge and experience' when qualifying them to testify. The court found it would 'defy logic' to consider this experience for qualification purposes but then deem it categorically irrelevant for assessing the expert's credibility before the jury. The jury's ability to evaluate credibility and a party's right to a 'thorough and sifting cross-examination' are best served by allowing inquiry into an expert's personal practices, especially when they diverge from the standard of care they assert in court. Any potential for jury confusion can be managed through careful jury instructions.
Analysis:
This decision represents a major reversal of Georgia's evidentiary rules in medical malpractice litigation. By overruling Johnson, the court significantly enhances a litigant's ability to challenge the credibility of an opposing party's medical expert. This change provides a powerful tool for cross-examination, allowing attorneys to expose inconsistencies between an expert's testimony and their own clinical behavior. The ruling empowers juries to make more informed credibility assessments and may impact expert witness selection and trial strategy in future malpractice cases.
Unlock the full brief for Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group