Beistline v. Footit

HEALTH LAW

Madeleine Ayer

In Beistline v. Footit, 485 P.3d 39 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a pharmacist’s expert testimony was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact about the prevailing standard of care for an internist, affirming the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the medical providers in a medical malpractice case. (Id. at 40). A husband and wife, the Beistlines, sued medical providers after the wife suffered a seizure, allegedly due to the care of an internist. (Id. at 41). The medical providers moved for summary judgment, relying on the expert testimony of an internist. (Id.). The Beistlines relied on the expert testimony of a pharmacist. (Id. at 42). The lower court granted summary judgment to the medical providers, ruling that a pharmacist was unqualified to rebut the testimony of an internist about the standard of care for an internist. (Id.). The lower court relied on a statute governing professional negligence. (Id.). The Beistlines appealed. (Id.). The supreme court agreed with the lower court’s ruling, though its analysis was different. (Id. at 44). The supreme court relied on a statute governing the narrower field of medical malpractice. (Id. at 45). Affirming the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the medical providers, the supreme court held that the pharmacist’s testimony was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact about the applicable standard of care for an internist. (Id. at 46).

 

Beistline v. Footit

HEALTH LAW

Madeleine Ayer

In Beistline v. Footit, 485 P.3d 39 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that a pharmacist’s expert testimony was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact about the prevailing standard of care for an internist, affirming the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the medical providers in a medical malpractice case. (Id. at 40). A husband and wife, the Beistlines, sued medical providers after the wife suffered a seizure, allegedly due to the care of an internist. (Id. at 41). The medical providers moved for summary judgment, relying on the expert testimony of an internist. (Id.). The Beistlines relied on the expert testimony of a pharmacist. (Id. at 42). The lower court granted summary judgment to the medical providers, ruling that a pharmacist was unqualified to rebut the testimony of an internist about the standard of care for an internist. (Id.). The lower court relied on a statute governing professional negligence. (Id.). The Beistlines appealed. (Id.). The supreme court agreed with the lower court’s ruling, though its analysis was different. (Id. at 44). The supreme court relied on a statute governing the narrower field of medical malpractice. (Id. at 45). Affirming the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment to the medical providers, the supreme court held that the pharmacist’s testimony was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact about the applicable standard of care for an internist. (Id. at 46).