Cartledge v. Montano, 325 Ga. App. 322

Cartledge, a patient, underwent a D&C with hysteroscopy in May 2005 after abnormal uterine bleeding.
Defendant Montano allegedly perforated Cartledge's uterus during the hysteroscopic procedure.
Cartledge suffered subsequent uterine and bowel perforations and multiple surgeries to repair injuries.
Cartledge filed a medical-malpractice action on April 27, 2007 with an expert affidavit from Dr. Halbridge.
Montano sought to exclude Halbridge’s testimony as beyond scope/qualifications; Cartledge sought to exclude evidence of prior abortions.
Trial court, in October 2012, granted Dal? Montano’s motion in limine to exclude Halbridge’s testimony and denied Cartledge’s motion to exclude abortion evidence; interlocutory appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Halbridge testimony	Halbridge qualified; expertise supports opinions	Halbridge lacked relevant area of practice	Abuse of discretion; Halbridge admissible
Abortion-evidence admissibility	Prior abortions may be probative of medical risk	Evidence prejudicial, prejudices Cartledge	Evidence's probative value not substantially outweighed; admissible with limits
Pretrial hearing under OCGA 24-9-67.1(d)	Hearing required to test expert reliability	Hearing not mandated	No mandatory hearing; not required in this context

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (test for reliability and relevance of expert testimony)
Cotten v. Phillips, 280 Ga. App. 280 (Ga. App. 2006) (area of practice for expert depends on allegations and record evidence)
Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804 (Ga. 2007) (interpretation of expert qualification requirements; emphasis on record evidence)
Mays v. Ellis, 283 Ga. App. 195 (Ga. App. 2007) (expert qualifications and Daubert standard applied in Georgia)
Layfield v. Dep’t of Transp., 280 Ga. 848 (Ga. 2006) (discretion in assessing relevancy and materiality; weight to jury)