Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Expert Testimony Reasonable Degree of Probability and the related topic of personal injury.   For more information on expert witnesses see the pages on Wikipedia.

Expert Testimony Reasonable Degree of Probability-Cases

2007 Doherty v. Aleck, 273 Va. 421, 641 S.E.2d 93.

Objections as to the expert witness questions being phrased to the correct standard of reasonable degree of probability must be raised when asked, otherwise they are waived.

2006 Bitar v. Rahman, 272 Va. 130, 630 S.E.2d 319.

Plaintiff’s medical expert did not state his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability in this malpractice action. Defendant did not make contemporaneous objection but rather raised that issue at the time of the motion to strike. The objection was untimely.

2005 Pettus v. Irving S. Gottfried, M.D., P.C., 269 Va. 69, 606 S.E.2d 819.

Medical malpractice action. Defendant sought to offer testimony of treating physician’s diagnosis. Under Va.Code § 8.01-399(B), such evidence is admissible only if offered to a reasonable degree of medical probability.

1999 Nichols v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 257 Va. 491, 514 S.E.2d 608.

Plaintiff had been prescribed one medication but pharmacy provided her with different medication. She took wrong medication for 21-day period during which she ingested 183 tablets of wrong medication. Treating physician from Kaiser testified that her glucose level was way too high; medication had induced her high blood sugar as well as other severe side effects set forth in his testimony. In addition, plaintiff testified to dramatic change in her condition after taking wrong medication. Plaintiff did not present expert testimony in strict sense of that term. That is, witness was not formally qualified who responded to hypothetical questions. There was, however, medical opinion testimony and lay testimony all of which presented a jury issue as to causation.

1997 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick. 254 Va. 206, 491 S.E.2d 286.

Treating physician should not have been allowed to testify as to mere possibility of need for future surgery. However, where physician was asked whether plaintiff would need surgery in future to reasonable degree of medical probability, that testimony was properly admissible.

1995 Fairfax Hosp. Sys. v. Curtis, 249 Va. 531, 457 S.E.2d 66.

Standard for the admissibility of expert testimony is reasonable degree of probability.

1989 Mite Consol. Indus. v. Swiney, 237 Va. 23, 376 S.E.2d 283.

Expert testimony reasonable degree of probability.It is not necessary that circumstances establish negligence as proximate cause with such certainty as to exclude every other possible conclusion. All that is necessary is probable certainty.

1980 Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475, 271 S.E.2d 419.

Expert testimony reasonable degree of probability.Medical testimony based on possibility is inadmissible. Such testimony must be based on reasonable probability.

1969 Whitfield v. Whittaker Mem. Hosp., 210 Va. 176, 169 S.E.2d 563.

Expert testimony reasonable degree of probability.In medical malpractice case, plaintiff’s medical expert stated if operation had been performed it probably would have saved patient’s life. This testimony set forth correct standard.