expert testimony rule in Alabama

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

2013Returning to the instant case, we have previously stated that “ ‘[prescription drugs are likely to be complex medicines, esoteric in formula and varied in effect.’ ” Stone v. Smith, Kline & French Labs., 447 So.2d 1301, 1305 (Ala.1984) (quoting Reyes v. Wyeth Labs., 498 F.2d 1264 , 1274 (5th Cir.1974)).

2013Regardless, however, this Court recognized in Ex parte HealthSouth that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not the only foundation for the exception to the expert-testimony rule in an AMLA case, stating: “[The petitioner] is correct that the AMLA requires expert testimony in medical-malpractice cases, but this Court has recognized exceptions to that rale, when medical expertise is not necessary to prove the plaintiffs ease, such as here when nurses have failed to respond to a routine, custodial call from a patient. [The petitioner] itself points to cases in the line of Anderson and Loeb [v.

2010This Court thoroughly examined the exception to the expert-testimony requirement in medical-malpractice actions "`where the want of skill or lack of care is so apparent as to be within the comprehension of the average layman and thus requires only common knowledge and experience to understand it.'" 896 So.2d at 392 (quoting Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall, 481 So.2d 1126, 1129-30 (Ala.1985)).

2010This Court thoroughly examined the exception to the expert-testimony requirement in medical-malpractice actions “ ‘where the want of skill or lack of care is so apparent as to be within the comprehension of the average layman and thus requires only common knowledge and experience to understand it.’ ” 896 So.2d at 392 (quoting Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall, 481 So.2d 1126, 1129-30 (Ala.1985)).

2008HealthSouth argued that Heath was required to present expert testimony because the facts of her case did not fit within one of the four categories of cases identified in Anderson v. Alabama Reference Laboratories, 778 So.2d 806 (Ala. 2000), as exceptions to the expert-testimony requirement in a medical-malpractice action.

2008HealthSouth argued that Heath was required to present expert testimony because the facts of her case did not fit within one of the four categories of cases identified in Anderson v. Alabama Reference Laboratories, 778 So.2d 806 (Ala.2000), as exceptions to the expert-testimony requirement in a medical-malpractice action.

2008The four categories stated in Anderson 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 *1140 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 [1347,] at 1350 [(Ala.1992

2008The four categories stated in Anderson were as follows: “ ‘ “ T) 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 [1347,] at 1350 [(Ala.1992)] (

2004Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 266-67 , 224 So.2d 621 , 623 (1969); Snow v. Allen , 227 Ala. 615 , 151 So. 468 (1933); Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923).

2004Parrish v. Spink , 284 Ala. 263 , 266-67 , 224 So.2d 621 , 623 (1969); Snow v. Allen , 227 Ala. 615 , 151 So. 468 (1933); Sellers v. Noah , 209 Ala. 103 , 95 So. 167 (1923).

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." [3] It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several e

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." [3] It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several e

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." [3] It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several e

1993Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts , § 32 at p. 188 (5th ed. 1984), wherein the authors describe the alleged "conspiracy of silence" as: "The well known reluctance of doctors to testify against one another, which has been mentioned now and then in the decisions, may make this [expert testimony on behalf of the plaintiff] difficult or impossible to obtain, especially in a jurisdiction with a narrow locality rule, and so in some instances effectively deprive the plaintiff of any remedy for a real and grievous wrong." 3 It should be remembered also that Alabama recognizes several ex