Section 13.24 Medical Expert and the Standard of Care

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

C. (§13.24) Medical Expert and the Standard of Care

Testimony on the standard of care is generally required in a malpractice case. Hart v. Steele, 416 S.W.2d 927 (Mo. 1967). But this testimony does not need to come from an opposing expert. The defendant may establish the standard by the defendant’s own testimony. Bateman v. Rosenberg, 525 S.W.2d 753, 757 (Mo. App. E.D. 1975) (“the defendant himself established the standard of care required”); Delisi v. St. Luke’s Episcopal-Presbyterian Hosp., Inc., 701 S.W.2d 170, 173 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985) (expert testimony is not required when the defendant’s testimony establishes the standard of care).

Testimony on the standard of care will not be required if the requirements of the legal theory of res ipsa loquitur are satisfied. The requirements of this doctrine are that:

• the occurrence resulting in injury does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence;

• the instrumentalities that caused the injury are under the care and management of the defendant; and

• the defendant possesses either superior knowledge of or means of obtaining information about the cause of the occurrence.

Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Mo. banc 1983). Res ipsa may apply in a medical case when a foreign object is left in the body. Crump v. Piper, 425 S.W.2d 924, 926–27 (Mo. 1968). But res ipsa loquitur is generally not applicable to a medical malpractice case. Graham v. Thompson, 854 S.W.2d 797, 799 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993). It will thus be the...