Youngblood v. Martin, [Ms. 1171037, Jan. 10, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). The Court (Stewart,
J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin and Wise, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs
in the result) reverses a judgment on a jury verdict entered in favor
of the plaintiff in a wrongful death action arising under the Alabama
Medical Liability Act (AMLA). To qualify as a similarly situated healthcare
provider under the AMLA, an expert must be “licensed by the appropriate
regulatory board or agency of this or some other state.” §
6-5-548(c)(1), Ala. Code 1975. At trial, the plaintiff’s expert
did not testify that he was licensed in Alabama or any other state.
While the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Doblar, was testifying, the defendant
objected and argued that plaintiff had not laid the proper predicate required
by § 6-5-548. Ms. *9. The Court held that this objection was sufficiently
specific to preserve for appellate review the expert’s lack of qualification
under § 6-5-548(c)(1). The Court explained that the defense “was
not required ‘to direct his opponent’s mind to the correct
law the way one would thrust a beagle’s nose on a rabbit trail.’”
Ms. *9, quoting
Ex parte Works, 640 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Ala. 1994)(some internal quotations marks omitted).
The Court reversed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and directed
that judgment as a matter of law be entered in favor of defendant “based
on the plain language of the statute, Dr. Doblar was not qualified to
testify concerning the standard of care ....” Ms. *11.