Braswell v. Stinnett, 99 So. 3d 175

Braswell sues his dentist for negligent anesthesia during a deep scaling and root planing procedure in December 2004, alleging facial swelling, pain, and permanent nerve damage.
Trial court granted a directed verdict because Braswell's expert, Turk, failed to state the applicable standard of care.
Braswell’s Court of Appeals reversal remanded for a new trial; this Court grants certiorari and reverses to reinstate the directed verdict.
Turk disclosed he was not licensed; the trial court initially permitted him as an expert but warned about cross-examination and improper contact with counsel.
The central issue is whether Braswell’s expert testimony established the standard of care and breach or whether the testimony was legally insufficient to support a prima facie malpractice case.
The Court affirms the directed verdict, holding Turk failed to establish the standard of care or a breach, and emphasizes that a plaintiff must prove the minimally competent standard through a qualified expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Braswell prove the standard of care and breach?	Braswell’s expert testified to deviations from standard practices.	Stinnett argues Turk failed to state a standard of care or breach.	No; Turk did not establish the standard or breach.
Is an unlicensed expert permissible to testify on standard of care in this context?	Unlicensed status should not preclude testimony if credibility supports it.	A qualified expert is required to establish the standard of care.	No; a minimally competent, licensed expert is required to establish the standard.
Was the trial court proper in granting a directed verdict given the expert testimony?	A question of fact remained due to expert testimony.	Post-evidence, the standard and breach were not shown; directed verdict appropriate.	Yes; directed verdict affirmed.

Thompson v. Nguyen, 86 So.3d 232 (Miss. 2012) (courts rely on expert testimony to establish standard of care in malpractice claims)
Newport v. Hyde, 244 Miss. 870, 147 So.2d 113 (Miss. 1962) (dentist standard of care aligns with physician standard)
Starcher v. Byrne, 687 So.2d 737 (Miss. 1997) (duty to prove standard of care through qualified expert)
McCaffrey v. Puckett, 784 So.2d 197 (Miss. 2001) (standard of care required; expert testimony necessary)
Estate of Northrop v. Hutto, 9 So.3d 381 (Miss. 2009) (cites need for appropriate expert proof in malpractice)
Palmer v. Biloxi Reg’l Med. Ctr., 564 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1990) (standard of care determination in medical context)
McCarty v. Mladineo, 636 So.2d 377 (Miss. 1994) (affirms requirement of expert testimony to prove breach)