Section 25 Generally

• Library: Prof Liability 2005

Expert testimony is almost always required in a medical malpractice case. Unless the lack of care or want of skill is so apparent as to be within the comprehension of laypersons, thus requiring only common knowledge and experience to understand and judge it, expert testimony is necessary to establish the claimed negligence and the cause or relationship to the injury. Hart v. Steele, 416 S.W.2d 927 (Mo. 1967). This rule is based on the premise that, without expert testimony, “juries will be cast into a river of doubt and must establish an arbitrary standard of their own . . . .” Cebula v. Benoit, 652 S.W.2d 304, 307 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983).

In Savage v. Christian Hospital Northwest, 543 F.2d 44, 47 (8^th Cir. 1976), there is a clear and logical discussion of the requirement for expert testimony. The plaintiff’s deceased father had been admitted to the hospital emergency room with several classic signs of a heart attack. He was examined and treated for almost three weeks with improvement until the day before his scheduled dismissal. His condition deteriorated on his last hospital day, and five hours later he was pronounced dead. The post mortem listed two factors—myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism—as the...