William Blackshear, M.D., and William M. Blackshear, Jr., M.D., P.A. v. Betty Jean Haynes

Summary

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed a medical-negligence judgment against William Blackshear, M.D., and his medical practice and remanded for a new trial on two counts. The court held that the trial court improperly permitted a nephrologist to testify regarding the professional standard of care applicable to a vascular surgeon under Florida's same-specialty requirement. The court further concluded that the error was not harmless because the necessity of the diagnostic tests was central to the parties' competing expert opinions.

Holdings

1. A nephrologist who does not practice in the same specialty as a defendant vascular surgeon may not testify that the vascular surgeon should not have ordered diagnostic tests or procedures when the necessity of those tests depends on the professional standard of care applicable to the vascular surgeon's specialty.
2. The error was not harmless because the necessity of the tests was central to the claims and the experts presented competing opinions on medical necessity and the applicable standard of care.
3. Blackshear preserved the objection because the trial court granted a standing objection to testimony that even hinted at a standard-of-care opinion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing a nephrologist who was not in the same specialty as the defendant vascular surgeon to testify about the professional standard of care and the medical necessity of diagnostic tests and procedures.
2. Whether any error in admitting the nephrologist's testimony was harmless because a vascular surgeon also testified for Haynes on the standard of care.
3. Whether Blackshear waived his objection to the nephrologist's testimony or consented to an unpleaded theory by failing to make contemporaneous objections after receiving a standing objection.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded