national standard in Tennessee

2011In 2002, the claimant requested this Court in Robinson to “enlarge the scope of the ‘locality rule’ ... by adopting a national standard of care that would reflect the modern changes and improvements in the practice of medicine, medical technology, and communication.” 83 S.W.3d at 722 (emphasis added).

2011But we further stated that “[t]his Court is mindful, however, that in many instances the national standard would indeed be representative of the local standard, especially for board certified specialists” and observed that “an expert’s discussion of the applicability of a national standard does not require exclusion of the testimony.” Id.

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Tatty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mahon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 . 12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Totty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mabon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 .12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Tatty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mahon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 . 12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Totty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mabon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 .12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2022Id. at 553 (“[I]n this case we do not adopt a national standard of care in medical malpractice cases.”).

2022As a result, we must conclude that Dr. Steege offered nothing more than “a bare assertion of the existence of an applicable national standard of care.” Shipley, 350 S.W.3d at 553–54.

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Tatty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mahon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 . 12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Totty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mabon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 .12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Further, the “claims that are based upon alleged violations of federal regulatory standards constitute a national standard of care that runs afoul [of] the” TMMA, and, more specifically, its “locality rule.” Id. at 733-34 . -15- As to the case before us, the Court of Appeals properly ruled that a negligence per se claim cannot co-exist with a medical malpractice claim.

2011Further, the “claims that are based upon alleged violations of federal regulatory standards constitute a national standard of care that runs afoul [of] the” TMMA, and, more specifically, its “locality rule.” Id. at 733-34.

2011When he was asked if he was familiar with the skills of the practitioners in Mur-freesboro, the proffered expert answered: “Insofar as they are trained and examined and have developed the same sets of skills, read the same literature, update their skills, go to the same conferences for continuous education that I do, come to my conferences when I give them in Tennessee.” He testified that the standard of care “does not vary throughout the country,” that it is a national standard, and “doesn’t change with the locality.” Id.

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Tatty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mahon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 . 12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011They include: (1) physicians in smaller communities “do[ ] not have access to the same opportunities and medical resources as do physicians in [urban areas]”; (2) “the quality of medical information and resources continues to vary geographically”; (3) some diseases have regional concentrations which suggest “concomitant regional variations in medical practices and resource allocations”; (4) holding rural physicians to a national standard might discourage physicians from practicing in rural areas; (5) because of the important role that physicians play, “society should not allow just anyone to s

2003We also clarified that while an expert’s discussion of a national standard of care does not require exclusion of the testimony, “such evidence may not substitute for evidence that first establishes the requirements of Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-26-115(a)(l).” Id.; see also Sutphin v. Platt, 720 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tenn.1986).

2019See Dist. of Columbia v. Arnold & Porter, 756 A.2d 427, 429, 434 (D.D.C. 2000) (holding “that expert testimony is required to establish the national standard of care for the operation and maintenance of a municipal water system and the handling of leaks in that system” because such activities “are not subjects within the common knowledge of jurors”); Frankenmuth Ins. v. City of Hickory, 760 S.E.2d 98 (N.C.

2012Dr. Maceri’s position, in essence, is that the Memphis medical community is of sufficient size and level of sophistication that the standard generally applied in an urban medical community such as Los Angeles is applicable in Memphis, and specifically to Dr. Shea and Shea Clinic. -19- We are also cognizant of the emphasis in Shipley on the trial court’s role as gatekeeper, stressing that the trial court is to decide only whether the proffered expert meets the minimum competency requirements, with the expectation that the expert “will thereafter be tested with the crucible of vigorous cross-exa

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Tatty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mahon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 . 12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Examples of such testimony are found in Stovall, 113 S.W.3d at 719 ; Robinson, 83 S.W.3d at 721 ; Taylor, 231 S.W.3d at 371-72 ; Carpenter, 205 S.W.3d at 479-80 ; Pullum, 174 S.W.3d at 131-32 ; Kenyon, 122 S.W.3d at 762 ; Totty, 121 S.W.3d at 678 ; Wilson, 73 S.W.3d at 99 ; Mabon, 968 S.W.2d at 828 ; Coyle, 822 S.W.2d at 598 ; and Ayers, 689 S.W.2d at 159 .12 Therefore, expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national standard should not be barred, but should be considered as an element of the expert witness’ knowledge of the standard of care in the same or similar

2011Ass’n, 276 Md. 187 , 349 A.2d 245, 252 (1975) (reviewing rationales for locality rules and a national standard of medical care, and concluding that "justification for the locality rules no longer exists”). .

2011Ass’n, 276 Md. 187 , 349 A.2d 245, 252 (1975) (reviewing rationales for locality rules and a national standard of medical care, and concluding that "justification for the locality rules no longer exists”). .

2011The court reached this conclusion despite its recognition that, as we observed in Robinson, “in many cases and particularly in cases that involve a board-certified specialty, such as the case now before us, the national standard is representative of the local standard.” Eckler, 281 S.W.3d at 387.