medical standard in Kentucky

2026ANALYSIS 12 The Radiologists ask us to answer whether Dr. Dysart’s expert testimony is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that, in a medical negligence case, a plaintiff must bring forth expert testimony as to “the applicable medical standard of care, any breach of that standard, and the resulting injury.” Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665, 675 (Ky. 2010) (citing Perkins, 828 S.W.2d at 655 ).

2026“Generally, we review a trial court's evidentiary determinations for abuse of discretion—'whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.’” Mason v. Commonwealth, 559 S.W.3d 337, 339 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Lopez v. Commonwealth, 459 S.W.3d 867 , 872–73 (Ky. 2015)). 14 Radiologists Lloyd’s case against the Radiologists hinges on whether she can proceed with only Dr. Dysart’s expert testimony in her medical negligence case against the Radiologists. 3 “As explained previously, a plaintiff bringing a typical medical malpractice case is

2024Expert testimony is typically essential to establish the element of causation in medical negligence particularly: “It is beyond dispute that causation is a necessary element of proof in any negligence case.” Baylis v. Lourdes Hosp., Inc., 805 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Ky.1991). “[I]n most medical negligence cases, proof of causation requires the testimony of an expert witness because the nature of the inquiry is such that jurors are not competent to draw their own conclusions from the evidence without the aid of such expert testimony.” Id.

2024Expert testimony is typically essential to establish the element of causation in medical negligence particularly: “It is beyond dispute that causation is a necessary element of proof in any negligence case.” Baylis v. Lourdes Hosp., Inc., 805 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Ky.1991). “[I]n most medical negligence cases, proof of causation requires the testimony of an expert witness because the nature of the inquiry is such that jurors are not competent to draw their own conclusions from the evidence without the aid of such expert testimony.” Id.

2026“Generally, we review a trial court's evidentiary determinations for abuse of discretion—'whether the trial judge's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.’” Mason v. Commonwealth, 559 S.W.3d 337, 339 (Ky. 2018) (quoting Lopez v. Commonwealth, 459 S.W.3d 867 , 872–73 (Ky. 2015)). 14 Radiologists Lloyd’s case against the Radiologists hinges on whether she can proceed with only Dr. Dysart’s expert testimony in her medical negligence case against the Radiologists. 3 “As explained previously, a plaintiff bringing a typical medical malpractice case is

2025In Blair v. Eblen, 461 S.W.2d 370, 373 (Ky. 1970), Kentucky’s then highest court defined the medical standard of care as “a duty to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent pract[it]ioner in the same class to which he belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances.” The Court further held: “we will leave determination of the standard to the medical profession and not the lay courts.” Id. -6- It is not wrong for a licensed ophthalmologist in good standing to claim a specialty in vitreoretinal surgery if they are qualified to do so.

2025In Blair v. Eblen, 461 S.W.2d 370, 373 (Ky. 1970), Kentucky’s then highest court defined the medical standard of care as “a duty to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of a reasonably competent pract[it]ioner in the same class to which he belongs, acting in the same or similar circumstances.” The Court further held: “we will leave determination of the standard to the medical profession and not the lay courts.” Id. -6- It is not wrong for a licensed ophthalmologist in good standing to claim a specialty in vitreoretinal surgery if they are qualified to do so.

2023It logically follows, then, that “[t]o survive a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case in which a medical expert is required, the plaintiff must produce expert evidence or summary judgment is proper.” Andrew v. Begley, 203 S.W.3d 165, 170, 173 (Ky. App. 2006).