## Facts

- Clair Johnson suffered a severe adverse reaction to anesthesia during surgery that interrupted her oxygen supply, causing massive brain trauma and death.
- Donald Johnson and the estate representative sued an anesthesiologist and his professional corporation for medical malpractice.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligence for failing to “pre-oxygenate” the patient before surgery (administering pure oxygen to create an oxygen reserve in case the supply is interrupted).
- Defendants presented expert testimony from Dr. Caplan on the applicable standard of care.
- Plaintiffs sought to cross-examine Dr. Caplan about whether he personally would have pre-oxygenated the patient; outside the jury’s presence, he indicated that he would have.
- The trial court granted a motion in limine barring that line of cross-examination.
- The jury returned a defense verdict; the Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of the cross-examination.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to review whether plaintiffs could question the defense expert about his personal treatment choice.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff may cross-examine a defendant’s expert about how the expert personally would have treated the patient as evidence of the standard of care.
2. Whether an expert’s personal treatment choice is admissible to impeach the expert’s credibility.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment for the defendants.
- It held that how a testifying medical expert personally would have treated the patient is not relevant to whether the defendant physician violated the applicable standard of care.
- It further held that an expert’s personal treatment choice cannot be used to impeach the expert’s credibility.
- The trial court did not err in excluding cross-examination asking whether the defense expert would personally have pre-oxygenated the patient.
- To the extent prior precedent suggested otherwise, it was disapproved and overruled.

## Legal Principles

- In Georgia medical malpractice cases, the standard of care is the level of care employed by the medical profession generally under the same or similar circumstances, not the preference or practice of an individual physician.
- Evidence concerning an expert’s personal treatment choice is irrelevant to proving or disproving breach of the general professional standard of care.
- An expert’s personal practice choices are not a permissible basis for impeachment when the expert testifies about the general standard of care.
- Trial courts may exclude cross-examination that seeks only an expert’s personal treatment preference because it does not assist the factfinder on breach or credibility within the governing standard-of-care framework.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict and approved exclusion of cross-examination about a defense expert’s personal treatment choice, ruling that individual preferences neither define the professional standard of care nor provide a valid impeachment method in a Georgia medical malpractice trial.


Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assocs., P.C., 275 Ga. 240, 563 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2002)