LOUIS J. FERRARO, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GARY M. STEIN, AND KRAUS AND STEIN, P.A., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellate court reversed directed verdict in dental malpractice case, holding that trial court abused its discretion by striking plaintiff's only expert witness based on lack of qualification when the expert was a qualified dentist with relevant credentials.
A dentist licensed in other states with specialized credentials in oral pathology is qualified to testify as an expert in a dental malpractice case, and striking such testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion.
[1] A dentist licensed to practice in other states and holding specialized credentials in oral pathology is qualified to testify as an expert witness in a dental malpractice…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLouis Ferraro sued for dental malpractice alleging negligence, lack of informed consent, and abandonment. Ferraro's only expert witness was Dr. R.M. G…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dental Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s order granting a directed verdict against appellant, who was the plaintiff below.
Louis Ferraro brought an action for dental malpractice alleging negligence, lack of informed consent, and abandonment. At the trial, Ferraro presented expert testimony from Dr. R.M. Gerughty, D.D.S., Ph.D., to support his claims. The trial court granted appellees’ motion to strike Dr. Ger-ughty’s testimony at the close of the plaintiff’s case on the ground that he was not qualified to testify as an expert. Dr. Ger-ughty was Ferraro’s only expert. Consequently, the court granted appellees’ motion for directed verdict.
Dr. Gerughty is the dean of the College of Health Related Professions at Idaho State University. He has a D.D.S. degree and specializes in oral pathology. He is a licensed dentist in California and South Carolina, and thus is able to perform exactly the same services in those two states as appellee performs in Florida. We cannot agree with the trial court that Dr. Gerughty was not qualified to testify as an expert and find that such a ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion. The arguments presented by appellee before us now and before the trial court really address the weight which should be accorded the testimony and not its admissibility. See Wright v. Schulte, 441 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), pet. for rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1984).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Botte v. Pomeroy, 497 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…view, any objections to Dr. Bralliar’s qualifications based on his failure to specialize in the diagnosis of spinal cord injuries should have been addressed to the weight of his testimony and not its admissibility. Ferraro v. Federal Insurance Co., 479 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The error was harmful, because the doctor’s proffered testimony supplied an essential link in the alleged chain of causation between the actions of Edwards and Botte’s injury. Botte next claims error in both the admission and t…
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. Arnold Schulte, Jr., M.D., 441 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)