SHEELEY V. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL case brief

SHEELEY V. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

• Sheeley sued Dr. Ryder and hospital in Rhode Island. Dr. Ryder is a family practice resident in Rhode Island

• Rhode Island statute §9-19-41 requires a testifying expert to be in the same medical field as defendant physician

• Sheeley’s expert (Dr. Leslie) is an OB/GYN – defendant filed motion to exclude Leslie’s testimony because he didn’t qualify under the statute and he hadn’t been practicing obstetrics since 1975

• trial court granted D’s motion; consequently, directed verdict entered for defendant, Sheeley appeals to Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Issue: what is the standard of care applicable to expert medical testimony?

• Buja v. Morningstar – nothing in the language of the statute requires that the expert practice in the same specialty; the facts of this case are virtually the same as Sheeley’s case

• wrinkle for plaintiff: D asserts “similar locality rule” – expert has to be from the same kind of community as the defendant; rationale for this rule is that throughout history the resources, customs, and practices of doctors in small towns was different than those in metropolitan locations

• criticism of that standard: it is completely outdated – medical standards, customs, and practices have been nationalized and systemized; the similar locality rule legitimized a lower standard of care

• idea of “conspiracy of silence” – colleagues in small community do not necessarily want to testify against each other in a malpractice suit

• Supreme Court states: standard is national now – locality doesn’t matter

• expert testimony from Dr. Leslie is allowed – Supreme Court reverses trial court’s directed verdict for D and remanded the case for a new trial