Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Ehrlich v. Miles – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Ehrlich v. Miles, 144 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied), the plaintiff underwent surgical procedures including a face lift and cheek implants, performed by a plastic surgeon. Id. at 623.

After the surgery, the cheek implants became infected and were ultimately removed. Id.

Plaintiff filed suit after another doctor told her that the surgery and treatment of the infection had caused permanent nerve damage in her face. Id.

Defendant's expert was board certified in neurology and forensic medicine but not in plastic surgery or surgery of any kind. Id. at 625.

The court concluded that a physician who specializes in neurology "should be familiar with procedures, symptoms, and infections that affect the nerves." Id.

The court held that defendant's expert was qualified to testify regarding the treatment of the infection that led to the nerve damage, as well as the consultation with the plaintiff regarding the risks and benefits of surgery. Id.

However, the court held defendant's expert was not qualified to give an expert opinion regarding the surgical procedures performed. Id. at 626.