Locher, J. Appellants essentially contend that the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court, which was premised upon the finding that plaintiff’s medical expert, a podiatrist, was qualified to testify concerning the alleged malpractice by orthopedic surgeons, was erroneous. In their first proposition of law, appellants set forth the generally accepted rule that the competency of an expert witness is a matter within the soun…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.