Brenda Griffith, next of kin of Decedent, Bob Griffith v. Dr. Stephen Goryl and Upper Cumberland Urology Associates, P.C., 403 S.W.3d 198

Plaintiff Brenda Griffith sues Dr. Stephen Goryl for medical malpractice in treating decedent Bob Griffith’s bladder cancer; death occurred in 2006 from cancer undetected by Goryl.
Plaintiff’s sole medical expert was Dr. James Gilbert Foster, a urologist; his testimony targeted Goryl’s failures to cystoscope, biopsy adequately, and pursue imaging and surveillance.
Trial occurred November 14, 2011 after discovery; defense moved for directed verdict arguing Foster was not competent to testify on standard of care and that plaintiff failed prima facie case.
The trial court excluded Foster’s testimony, concluding Foster’s standard-of-care opinion was not competent under Tennessee law, and granted directed verdict for defendant.
On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals held Foster was competent under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b) and admissible under Rules 702/703; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The opinion emphasizes the proper gatekeeping role of the court (Shipley) and that the “majority of” phrasing, by itself, does not render an expert’s testimony inadmissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Foster was a competent medical expert under §29-26-115(b).	Foster meets competency; familiar with Cookeville standard of care; evidence supports his reliability.	Foster’s phrasing and basis render him unreliable; not sufficiently accustomed to Cookeville standard.	Foster competent; trial court abused discretion excluding his testimony.
Whether the trial court’s directed verdict was proper in light of Foster’s admissible testimony.	With Foster’s testimony, there was material evidence of negligent deviations viable for trial.	Without admissible expert proof on standard of care, plaintiff failed to prove prima facie malpractice.	Directed verdict reversed; case remanded for new trial.

Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2011) (gatekeeping; admissibility of expert under 29-26-115(b) and Rules 702/703)
Godbee v. Dimick, 213 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (standard-of-care expert testimony not based on ‘majority’ alone)