Smethers v. Campion
108 P.3d 946, 210 Ariz. 167 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a medical malpractice case, an expert witness's personal medical practices are relevant and admissible to assess the expert's credibility and to assist the jury in determining the applicable standard of care.
Facts:
- Gary Smethers, M.D., a long-time patient at Southwestern Eye Center, wore extended-wear soft contact lenses for approximately 15 years.
- In September 1999, Dr. Smethers consulted with Southwestern about LASIK surgery and was referred to Dr. Michael Campion.
- On October 1, 1999, Dr. Smethers had a LASIK evaluation with Dr. Campion, where measurements of his corneas were taken immediately after he removed his contact lenses.
- Dr. Smethers was instructed to remove his lenses several days prior to his surgery scheduled for November 5, 1999.
- On the day of the procedure, Dr. Campion performed the LASIK surgery without re-measuring Dr. Smethers' eyes, instead relying on the October 1 measurements and a review of eleven historical measurements taken over the previous nine years.
- The surgery resulted in an 'over-correction,' causing Dr. Smethers' vision to deteriorate significantly, with lasting problems such as glare, halos, and fluctuating vision.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Smethers, M.D., sued Michael Campion, M.D., and Southwestern Eye Center, Ltd. for medical malpractice in an Arizona trial court.
- Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence regarding the personal practices of their expert witness, Dr. Binder, which the trial court granted.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for the defendants based on the jury's verdict.
- Dr. Smethers (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals, with Dr. Campion and Southwestern Eye Center (appellees) responding.
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 trial court commit reversible error in a medical malpractice action by precluding a plaintiff from cross-examining a defense expert about personal medical practices that are inconsistent with the expert's testimony regarding the applicable standard of care?
Opinions:
Majority - Winthrop, Judge
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by precluding such cross-examination. Evidence of an expert witness's personal practices is relevant and admissible to assist the jury in determining the standard of care and, more importantly, to evaluate the expert's credibility. The fact that a defense expert testifies that the standard of care does not require what the expert personally does in a similar situation is a critical piece of information for the jury's consideration. In this case, the defense expert, Dr. Binder, testified in his deposition that his personal practice for a patient like Dr. Smethers would be to have the lenses out for 72 hours before taking measurements, which contradicted his trial testimony that Dr. Campion met the standard of care by not re-measuring. Prohibiting cross-examination on this point deprived the plaintiff of the ability to impeach the witness and prevented the jury from fully evaluating his credibility, which was not harmless error.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that an expert's personal practices are not irrelevant but are highly probative of their credibility concerning the standard of care. It prevents experts from creating a disconnect between what they testify is 'acceptable' for others and the higher standards they apply in their own practice. This ruling provides a crucial tool for impeachment in medical malpractice litigation, making it more difficult for experts to defend a lower standard of care than they themselves follow. Future cases will likely see more aggressive cross-examination of experts on their personal habits and protocols to challenge their opinions on the standard of care.
