Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Holt v. Godsilgreen2 sentences2025"The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: " ' "(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qua 2017The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: 2 " '(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qual | 8 | 15 |
Allred v. Shirleygreen2 sentences2025"The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: " ' "(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qua 2017The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: 2 " '(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qual | 5 | 10 |
Anderson v. Alabama Reference Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2025"The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: " ' "(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qua 2017The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: 2 " '(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qual | 4 | 9 |
Ex Parte HealthSouth Corp.green2 sentences2025"The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: " ' "(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qua 2017The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule that the plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must proffer independent expert medical testimony: 2 " '(1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qual | 4 | 6 |
Jones v. BRADFORD, THROUGH BRADFORDgreen2 sentences1998This Court identified four specific situations that do not require that the breach of the applicable standard of care be established by the testimony of a medical expert: “ ‘ “1. where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiffs body following surgery; 2. where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3. where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4. where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qualified to eval 1994In Jones v. Bradford, 623 So.2d 1112 (Ala.1993), this Court set out four exceptions to the general rule that a doctor’s breach of the applicable standard of care must be established by the testimony of a medical expert: “1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiffs body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself | 1 | 2 |
Cobb v. Fishergreen1 sentence2015This Court has recognized the following situations as falling within this exception: “ ‘ “ 1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiffs body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qualified to evaluate the doctor’s allegedly negligent conduct.’ ” “ ‘Allred [v. Shirley ], 598 So.2d | 1 | 1 |
Sorrell v. Kinggreen1 sentence2009This Court has recognized the following situations as falling within this exception: “ ‘ “1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiffs body follow *1258 ing surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4) where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qualified to evaluate the doctor’s allegedly negligent conduct.” ’ “Allred [v. Shirley], 598 So. | 1 | 1 |
Dews v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'ngreen1 sentence1998This Court identified four specific situations that do not require that the breach of the applicable standard of care be established by the testimony of a medical expert: “ ‘ “1. where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiffs body following surgery; 2. where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3. where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice; and 4. where the plaintiff is himself or herself a medical expert qualified to eval | 1 | 1 |
Tant v. Women's Clinicgreen1 sentence1985See also Tant v. Women's Clinic , 382 So.2d 1120 , 1121 (Ala. 1980), where this Court stated: "Only in the most extreme cases will the jury be permitted to find professional misconduct, resulting in injury within the doctor/patient relationship, absent expert testimony as to the standard of care which the doctor is alleged to have breached. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sellers v. Noah
green
2 sentences1990However, the following situations have been found to be exceptions to the general rule that expert medical testimony is necessary: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , 1990However, the following situations have been found to be exceptions to the general rule that expert medical testimony is necessary: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , | 3 | 1984–1990 |
Lamont v. Brookwood Health Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990However, the following situations have been found to be exceptions to the general rule that expert medical testimony is necessary: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , 1985"The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , 382 So.2d 528 (Ala. 1980); and (4) where the pla | 3 | 1984–1990 |
Parrish v. Spink
green
2 sentences1990However, the following situations have been found to be exceptions to the general rule that expert medical testimony is necessary: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , 1990However, the following situations have been found to be exceptions to the general rule that expert medical testimony is necessary: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , | 3 | 1984–1990 |
Zills v. Brown
green
2 sentences1990However, the following situations have been found to be exceptions to the general rule that expert medical testimony is necessary: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , 1985"The following situations have been recognized as exceptions to the general rule: (1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery, Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923); (2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment, Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); (3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authoritative medical text or treatise to prove what is or is not proper practice, Zills v. Brown , 382 So.2d 528 (Ala. 1980); and (4) where the pla | 3 | 1984–1990 |
University of Alabama Health Services Foundation, P.C. v. Bush
green
1 sentence2002Found, v. Bush, 638 So.2d 794 (Ala.1994). [4] Section 6-5-540 states that the Legislature's expressed intent in enacting the AMLA was to restrict "the threat of legal actions for alleged medical injury causes." [5] The judicially recognized exceptions to § 6-5-548, before the majority issued its opinion today, were as follows: "`"1) where a foreign instrumentality is found in the plaintiff's body following surgery; 2) where the injury complained of is in no way connected to the condition for which the plaintiff sought treatment; 3) where the plaintiff employs a recognized standard or authorita | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Loeb v. Cappelluzzo
green
1 sentence1994All of these exceptions are based on the premise that they represent situations where " 'the want of skill or lack of care was so apparent' that the average person does not need expert testimony to understand the malpractice. . . ." Loeb v. Cappelluzzo , 583 So.2d 1323 , 1325 (Ala. 1991), quoting Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall , 481 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall
green
1 sentence1994All of these exceptions are based on the premise that they represent situations where " 'the want of skill or lack of care was so apparent' that the average person does not need expert testimony to understand the malpractice. . . ." Loeb v. Cappelluzzo , 583 So.2d 1323 , 1325 (Ala. 1991), quoting Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall , 481 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1985). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
McMickens v. Callahan
green
1 sentence1994McMickens v. Callahan , 533 So.2d 579 (Ala. 1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.