Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McGathey v. Brookwood Health Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided August 2, 2013No. 1110760Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurdock, Justice

I concur in all aspects of the main opinion except one. I respectfully dissent as to the determination in the main opinion that expert testimony was not needed in regard to the claim against Brookwood Health Services, Inc., and the corresponding reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Brookwood.

The plaintiff, Felice McGathey, contends that expert testimony is not required to demonstrate that attaching to a patient’s hand a metal bar hot enough to burn human skin falls below the standard of care. McGathey cites Lloyd Noland Foundation, Inc. v. Harris, 295 Ala. 63, 66, 322…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lloyd Noland Foundation, Inc. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
  2. Ford v. Stringfellow Memorial HospitalCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API