In Estate of Reinen v. Northern Arizona Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283, PP11-12, 9 P.3d 314, 318 (2000), a medical malpractice action, our supreme court stated the jury was "not compelled to believe the uncontradicted evidence" of the defendant doctor who testified he would not have changed the plaintiff's treatment had he examined the plaintiff. The plaintiff's expert witness, however, testified a different treatment from what the defendant doctor ordered was necessary, and had the defendant doctor examined the plaintiff and correctly treated him, his injuries might have been averted. Id. PP10, 13. Although the expert witness's testimony did not directly contradict the testimony of the defendant doctor that he would not have changed his treatment plan, it certainly cast doubt on the defendant doctor's credibility.