Griffin Vs. St. Vincent's Hospital

Expert witnesses are a crucial and frequently required factor in most civil cases. An expert can be an important part of many aspect in either the prosecution or defense’s case. An expert can be utilized to introduce the evidence through their own testimonials but their role does not end there. As Douglas Heist stated expert witnesses are useful “in the development, evaluation and preparation of the defense or prosecution of a case (2010).” In most malpractice cases expert witnesses are necessary, doctors and health care professionals are needed to establish standard of care. This involves them testifying to what a competent and reasonably skilled provider would have done in the situation (Goguen, 2012). The importance of expert witnesses are exemplified by cases like Griffin vs. St. Vincent’s Hospital.
In Griffin vs. St. Vincent’s Hospital the plaintiff entered the hospital with shortness of breath and after an extended wait was admitted. During the stay four hospital personnel attempted to move the patient but were informed by him he felt he was too heavy to be carried solely by them. However, beyond …show more content…
This exception is recognized as the “common knowledge” rule or exception. The common knowledge rule holds that expert testimony is not required if the subject matter of the misconduct is within, the common knowledge possessed by members of the public who lack medical training (King, 2007). The concept seems simple but this is not the case. Many cases and courts have found the nature of the concept challenging and struggled to establish a useful definition. It is also a struggle to develop a process for determining when the common knowledge rule is applicable (Bal, 2009). Many health care professionals are wary of the concept because they fear the average citizen will fail to comprehend the complexity of medical decision making (King,