Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Medical Center

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 sound discretion of the trial court, and a court's ruling thereon will not be reversed
unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of this discretion. Ohio Turnpike Commission v. Ellis (1955), 164 Ohio St. 377.
Relying on their previous iteration of the excerpted testimony of plaintiff's expert pertaining to his qualifications, appellants
infer in their second proposition of law that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the record contains some
evidence demonstrative of the witness' lack of qualification. Upon a perusal of the record, we are constrained to disagree.
The trial court's exclusion of the expert testimony of plaintiff's witness was clearly erroneous and constituted reversible
error.