Plaintiff James Thomas Taylor filed a medical malpractice claim against defendant Maurice G. Prevost, M.D. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and defendant appeals.
1. Plaintiff’s expert witness based his oрinion not only upon a review of the plaintiff’s medical records but also upon a physical examination of the plaintiff. Defendant filed a motion for an order permitting one of his expert witnesses to examine the plaintiff pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-35. Defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion. The order denying defendant’s mоtion shows it was based in part on a finding that the information sought under the motion for examination could be obtained from other available sources. The record shows the medical records for all treatment rеceived by plaintiff after the surgery performed by defendant were available to defendant. Thus, the trial сourt did not abuse its broad discretion in denying defendant’s motion. See
Sheffield v. Lockhart,
2. Neither did the trial court err in granting plaintiff’s motion in limine prohibiting the defendant from establishing at trial that he had requested the opportunity to examine the plaintiff but plaintiff had objected. It would have been improper for the defendant to draw attention to the objection of the plaintiff which had been sustained by
*369
a ruling of the court. See
Savannah
&c.
R. Co. v. Wainwright,
3. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the question eliciting thе opinion of plaintiff’s expert witness because it was not propounded in the form of a hypothetical question. Plaintiff’s attorney asked the expert if he had an opinion based on his review of plaintiff’s medical records and his examination of the plaintiff. “When an expert testifies to facts within his knowledge, it is not neсessary that the question propounded be stated hypothetically. An expert may base his opinion upon facts which he knows and has observed.”
Corbin v. State,
4. Defendant also asserts the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the question posеd by plaintiff’s attorney to defendant’s expert witness as to whether he would have personally chosen tо undergo the surgery performed by the defendant if he, himself, had been the patient. It is true, as defendant argues, thаt the issue in a medical professional negligence action is whether the treatment met the standard оf care of the profession generally and not what any one individual doctor believes is advisable. However, those cases cited by defendant involved instances where the only testimony presented to suрport plaintiff’s claim is the individual view of one doctor and no testimony was presented as to the standard of care generally practiced by the profession. See
Simpson v. Dickson,
5. We disagree that the plaintiff’s attorney improperly published to the jury the text of a medical treatise during his cross-examination of defendant’s expert witness. “A party can prove by cross-examination of an opposing party’s expert that a treatise is standard on the subject.”
Pound v. Medney,
supra at 762. An examination of thе transcript shows plaintiff’s attorney did not improperly present the text to prove the opinions of thе author but questioned the witness whether the opinions expressed in the text were also his own. See
State Highway Dept. v. Willis,
6. Defendant has abandoned one of its remaining enumerations of error by failing to support it with argument or citations оf authority. See Rule 15 (c) (2) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Those remaining enumeratiоns of error which were argued in the brief relate to the sufficiency of the trial court’s charge to the jury on the law of professional medical negligence and the court’s failure to charge five of defendant’s requested charges. We find the charge as given is proper and adequate. “[R]efusal of a requеst [to charge] is not error where a correct instruction by the trial court dealing with the principles of law embodied in the request, although in more abstract terminology, is given . . . .”
Johnson v. Myers,
Judgment affirmed.