Day on Torts
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court’s finding that an expert witness was not qualified to testify on behalf of a plaintiff in a health care liability action, relying on Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (2011).
In Bock v. University of Tennessee Medical Group, Inc., No. 10-5534 (6th Cir. March 26, 2012), the court ruled that Shipley required a remand but also made it very clear that merely determining a witness to be competent to give expert testimony did not end the inquiry. After competency is determined, case law and evidence rules in federal court still require application of the FRE 702 as interpreted by Daubert. The record was such that the court could not make the determination of these issues and thus a remand was appropriate.
The case includes a helpful discussion of the interaction between the Erie rule and the Federal Rules of Evidence and how the 6th Circuit has addressed the issue. Surprisingly, the United States Supreme Court has never directly addressed the issue.
Shipley does not open the door to permit anyone to qualify as an expert witness in a medical malpractice case. However, Shipley does put some degree of common sense back into the discussion of whether the proposed expert is competent to testify.