Hegarty v. Hudson, 123 So. 3d 945

Hudson, a 2004 patient, underwent cesarean delivery by Dr. Hegarty at the Monroeville Medical Clinic.
During the C-section, the placenta detached but could not be located by Hegarty or his partner; Fahy recommended guidance to Powell.
Postoperative care revealed abdominal pain and weight loss; a CT scan on July 15, 2004 identified a mass; a retained placenta was later removed.
Hudson sued in 2006 for medical negligence; Hospital was dismissed in 2010/2011; trial proceeded against Hegarty and the Clinic.
Expert Dr. Banks testified for Hudson regarding Hegarty’s breach of the standard of care, but the defendants challenged Banks’s qualifications under AMLA §6-5-548.
The jury awarded Hudson $150,000; the trial court denied motions for judgment as a matter of law; the defendants appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Dr. Banks testify as a similarly situated provider?	Hudson (Banks) qualified under §6-5-548(e).	Banks was not certified in the same specialty; not similarly situated.	No; Banks improperly admitted; Banks not similarly situated.
Did the trial courtErr in submitting Banks’s admissibility to the jury?	Discretionary gate-keeping justified; testimony proper.	Court should have ruled on admissibility as a matter of law.	Trial court exceeded discretion; error requiring reversal.

Holcomb v. Carraway, 945 So.2d 1009 (Ala.2006) (defines similarly situated health care provider under AMLA)
Johnson v. Price, 743 So.2d 436 (Ala.1999) (same-board requirement for expert testimony)
Medlin v. Crosby, 583 So.2d 1290 (Ala.1991) (expert qualification standards in AMLA context)
Ex parte Waddail, 827 So.2d 789 (Ala.2001) (specialist versus non-specialist treatment in AMLA analysis)
Holly v. Huntsville Hospital, 865 So.2d 1177 (Ala.2003) (treatment outside specialty affects expert admissibility)
Olsen v. Rich, 657 So.2d 875 (Ala.1995) (legislative policy context for AMLA expert standards)