McGee v. Smith
107 S.W.3d 725, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 3784, 2003 WL 2004194 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a veterinary negligence action, which is analyzed under the same standard as medical malpractice, a plaintiff is required to present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the defendant's deviation from that standard, and that the deviation proximately caused the injury, unless the alleged negligence is a matter of common knowledge for a layperson.
Facts:
- Carl Smith's foal sustained a four-centimeter cut on its left rear leg, exposing the bone.
- Dr. Jeff Williams, a licensed veterinarian at Bridgeport Animal Hospital, treated the wound and prescribed oral antibiotics.
- Smith left the foal and its mother (a mare) in the care of Dr. Williams at the hospital over the Memorial Day weekend.
- While at the hospital, Dr. Williams switched the foal to a once-a-day formulation of the same antibiotic.
- A few days later, the foal exhibited colic symptoms, and Dr. Bill McGee treated it for suspected ulcers and administered a sedative.
- Dr. McGee observed the foal for three hours, believed it had returned to normal, and left the clinic.
- The next morning, an employee found the foal dead.
- Dr. Williams performed a necropsy and concluded the foal died of endotoxic shock, a syndrome caused by a reaction to the antibiotic.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Smith filed suit against Bill McGee, D.V.M., Jeff Williams, D.V.M., and Bridgeport Animal Hospital, PLLC in a Texas trial court, alleging negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and other claims.
- At trial, the court granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims.
- The negligence claim was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Smith for $45,000.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered a final judgment on the jury's verdict.
- The defendants (now appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, Second District, with Carl Smith as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff in a veterinary negligence case fail to provide legally sufficient evidence to support a judgment if they do not present expert testimony to establish the standard of care, a breach of that standard, and causation?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice John Cayce
Yes, a plaintiff in a veterinary negligence case fails to provide legally sufficient evidence without presenting expert testimony. Veterinary negligence cases are analyzed under the same standard as medical malpractice cases, which requires expert testimony to prove: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) a deviation from that standard, and (3) that the deviation caused the injury. The only exception is when the form of treatment is a matter of common knowledge for a layperson. Here, Smith presented no expert testimony, relying only on his own lay opinion and that of his father-in-law. The defense, however, presented an expert who testified that the foal was treated appropriately and that the cause of death was endotoxic shock, not malnourishment. Without his own expert testimony, Smith failed to meet his burden of proof, and the lay witness testimony he offered has no probative force in a professional negligence claim.
Dissenting - Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
No, a plaintiff should not be required to present expert testimony in this case. The majority mischaracterizes Smith's claim as one of veterinary malpractice when it is actually a claim of ordinary negligence. Smith's core allegation was that the defendants failed to properly feed and water the animals, which is not a complex medical procedure requiring expert explanation; it is a matter within the common knowledge of a layperson. The majority incorrectly applies the heightened proof requirements of a medical malpractice standard to a simple ordinary negligence cause of action. A case does not become a malpractice case simply because the defendant is a veterinarian.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle in Texas that veterinary negligence claims are treated analogously to medical malpractice claims against physicians. It establishes a high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, mandating the use of expert testimony to prove the core elements of the professional negligence claim. The case underscores the critical distinction between ordinary negligence (e.g., failure to feed) and professional malpractice (e.g., improper medical treatment), as the characterization of the claim dictates the required standard of proof. Consequently, future plaintiffs must carefully plead their case and be prepared to bear the expense of expert witnesses if the claim involves professional veterinary judgment or skill.
Unlock the full brief for McGee v. Smith