Treating physician’s testimony that he would not have changed his course of treatment had defendant physician met the standard of care is inadmissible at trial and will not insulate defendant from liability for negligence.

The plaintiff developed back and leg pain, as well as numbness and weakness in his hands and fingers. His treating neurologist performed an MRI of the lumbar spine, but not the cervical spine. The results demonstrated severe stenosis of the spinal canal, for which the plaintiff underwent surgical decompression of the lumbar spine by a neurosurgeon. He continued to experience symptoms in his upper extremities and ultimately developed quadriplegia. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging that his treating neurologist failed to diagnose and treat spinal compression in his cervical spine, resulting in the development of his paralysis. At trial, the neurologist offered the testimony of the plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon, who testified that he would not have changed his course of treatment even had he known of the spinal compression in the cervical spine. The neurologist relied on this testimony in asserting that the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof as to causation. The jury found in favor of the neurologist, and the verdict was affirmed on appeal. However, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the testimony of a subsequent treating physician, that he would not have treated the plaintiff any differently despite the defendant’s negligence, is irrelevant and inadmissible.

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2014