Physician's testimony about what he did and why he did it does not open door to cross-examination on standard of care

Treating physicians are fact witnesses with expert knowledge, and in various contexts it becomes necessary to consider whether they may be treated like expert witnesses.

In Smith v. Irving, a medical malpractice case, the Virginia Supreme Court held on Friday in an opinion by Justice Keenan that the direct examination of the defendant surgeon about what he did and why did it did not open the door to cross-examination on the expert question of the standard of care for the treatment at issue in the case.