Trees v. Ordonez

Rule of Law:

In a medical malpractice case, expert testimony from a qualified witness who is not a medical doctor may be sufficient to establish the standard of care and breach of that standard. The sufficiency of such testimony depends on the expert's knowledge of the specific subject matter, not solely on their professional degree or license.

Facts:

• Dr. Ordonez, a neurosurgeon, performed cervical spine surgery on plaintiff Trees, which involved installing a titanium Synthes plate with screws.
• Following the surgery, Trees experienced severe pain, difficulty swallowing, and other symptoms indicative of a perforated esophagus.
• Her health deteriorated, requiring six additional surgeries, including one to remove the Synthes plate and screws.
• The plate was ultimately replaced with a halo device to stabilize her spine.
• Trees sustained permanent injuries, including chronic pain and limited arm mobility, which prevented her from continuing her career as a dental hygienist.
• The plaintiff's central claim was that Dr. Ordonez improperly installed the plate, leaving screws protruding from its surface, which eroded or perforated her esophagus.

Procedural Posture:

• Trees (plaintiff) filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Ordonez (defendant) in an Oregon circuit court (trial court).
• At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing the plaintiff had failed to establish the standard of care with expert medical testimony.
• The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of negligence.
• Trees (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the biomechanical engineer's testimony was insufficient to establish the medical standard of care for a surgeon.
• Trees (petitioner) petitioned the Supreme Court of Oregon for review, which was granted.