Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr., No. B195097 ( Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2008)

The Court of Appeal of California reversed and remanded a trial court's summary judgment in favor of a medical center in a medical malpractice suit, holding that the lower court erred in excluding the testimony of an Israeli patient's orthopedist who examined the patient in Israel (where she lived), on the grounds that he did not state that he was familiar with the standard of care in Southern California. The court reasoned that the appropriate test for expert qualification in medical malpractice actions is whether the expert is familiar with circumstances similar to those involved in the case, and that familiarity with the standard of care in the particular community is not required.

In this claim involving the treatment of the patient's broken arm, the patient's expert stated that "he had practiced orthopedics for 27 years, had treated thousands of patients with injuries similar to [the patient's], had numerous contacts with doctors from the United States regarding treatment of injuries similar to [the patient's], had reviewed many publications on treatment of fractures in the United States, and that treating a fracture would be handled similarly in Israel as in the United States." Based on these statements, the court concluded that the expert was generally familiar with the standard of care for treating fractures in the United States in circumstances similar to the patient's and that it was not necessary that the expert also state that he was familiar with the standard care in Southern California in order for his testimony to be admitted.