Donna Faye Shipley v. Robin Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527

Background

Mrs. Shipley underwent emergency colon surgery in January 2001 performed by Dr. Williams; her post-op course included ileostomy and subsequent infections.
On Nov 17–18, 2001 she presented to Summit Medical Center with abdominal pain and fever; Dr. Walker treated her in the ER and planned follow-up after IV fluids.
Discharge instructed follow-up with Dr. Williams, but scheduling inconsistencies led to a plan for follow-up with a different physician, creating uncertainty about next steps.
Mrs. Shipley allegedly deteriorated, was admitted with sepsis on Nov 21, 2001, and suffered additional permanent injuries.
Shipley filed suit in 2002 against Drs. Williams and Walker and the hospital; the hospital and Walker obtained summary judgment, which was not appealed.
Dr. Williams moved for partial summary judgment, relying on the disqualification of two expert witnesses who testified about standard of care; the trial court disqualified Drs. Rerych and Shaw under Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115 and Rules 702/703, and dismissed or limited claims; the Court of Appeals initially affirmed the disqualification but reversed portions related to negating essential elements; the case was granted permission to appeal to resolve standards for qualifying medical experts under the locality rule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the locality rule § 29-26-115(a)(1) requires exclusion of experts lacking familiarity with Nashville or a similar community.	Shipley contends experts were familiar or could be educated about the Nashville area or a similar community.	Williams argues experts failed to meet § 29-26-115(a)(1) and § 702/703 admissibility.	No; the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the experts.
Whether a medical expert may educate himself about a community to satisfy § 29-26-115(a)(1) without personal firsthand knowledge.	Expert may rely on broader sources to gain familiarity with the community.	Requires personal, firsthand knowledge of the local medical community.	Experts may educate themselves and still qualify; firsthand knowledge is not strictly required.
Whether the trial court should assess expert admissibility under Rules 702/703 separate from the locality-rule qualification.	Evidence can be admitted if it substantially assists the trier and is trustworthy.	Admissibility should be denied if evidence is not trustworthy or not substantially helpful.	Trial court must gatekeep under 702/703; admissibility is distinct from qualification.
Whether the court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to appellate review of admissibility decisions at summary judgment.	Appellate review should be deferential for admissibility determinations.	Should review de novo when assessing admissibility.	Abuse-of-discretion governs admissibility; de novo review applies to ultimate summary-judgment decision.
Whether the expert testimony of Dr. Shaw (ER physician) was relevant despite not practicing the defendant’s specialty.	Shaw offered relevant insight into ER-to-surgery communication and follow-up care.	Shaw’s specialty did not directly relate to the standard of care for a surgeon.	Shaw is competent; his testimony pertained to the issues and was admissible.

Key Cases Cited

Robinson v. LeCorps, 83 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. 2002) (locality rule requires familiarity with defendant’s community or a similar one)
Searle v. Bryant, 713 S.W.2d 62 (Tenn. 1986) (recognizes familiarity with local practice as basis for testimony)
Sutphin v. Platt, 720 S.W.2d 455 (Tenn. 1986) (contiguous-state geographic limitation upheld; locality rule evolves)
Ledford v. Moskowitz, 742 S.W.2d 645 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987) (non-local familiarity can support qualification)
Stovall v. Clarke, 113 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2003) (clarifies reliance on non-local knowledge and trial context)
Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2006) (limits on expert familiarity proofs; standard of care element)
Robinson v. LeCorps, 83 S.W.3d 718 (Tenn. 2002) (locality/similar community requirement; national standard not adopted)
Taylor ex rel. Gneiwek v. Jackson-Madison Cnty. Gen’l Hosp. Dist., 231 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2006) (qualifies expert based on local and cross-regional familiarity)
Carpenter v. Klepper, 205 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2006) (locality-rule test; weigh weight of testimony)
Coyle v. Prieto, 822 S.W.2d 596 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1991) (expert may rely on cross-state familiarity; admissibility vs weight)
Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003) (affidavit must show familiarity with defendant’s community or a similar one)
Bravo v. Sumner Reg’l Health Sys., Inc., 148 S.W.3d 357 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2003) (affidavit may show familiarity with communities similar in size)