Bell v. Hart

In Bell v. Hart, 516 So.2d 562, 564 (Ala. 1987), the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action against the defendant--physician for prescribing the injured plaintiff a drug, which caused her to sustain injuries. The plaintiffs identified a psychologist and a pharmacist as their expert witnesses. Id. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly excluded the expert witnesses' testimonies because: Although the pharmacist and psychologist were shown to be highly qualified experts in their fields of study, we could not permit them to testify whether a medical doctor followed the proper standard of care in prescribing the drug Elavil. Neither was shown to be authorized to prescribe the drug. While their knowledge of the drug and its effect on the human body may or may not be greater than that of a medical doctor authorized by law to prescribe the drug, we could not permit a non-physician, who could not legally prescribe a drug, to testify concerning the standard of care that should have been exercised in the prescription of the drug. Id. at 570.