Diel v Bryan, 2010 NY Slip Op 02230 (4th Dept. 2010)
“We reject the contention of defendant that plaintiff’s expert witness, a board certified anesthesiologist, was not qualified to testify concerning the standard of care to be applied in evaluating defendant’s care and treatment of decedent with respect to the administration of anesthesia during a dental procedure. “[T]he anesthesiologist possessed the requisite skill, training, knowledge and experience to render a reliable opinion with respect to the standard of care applicable to the administration of the anesthesia” in this case (id. at 1494; see Bickom v Bierwagen, 48 AD3d 1247). Although defendant’s expert in oral maxillofacial surgery testified that there were “separate rules [concerning anesthesia] for dentists only,” defendant failed to establish how the administration of anesthesia to decedent during a dental procedure required special training or differed in any material respect from the administration of anesthesia by a board certified anesthesiologist. Indeed, we note that, at the time of decedent’s procedure, the “separate rules” for acquiring a dental anesthesia certificate provided that a dentist could obtain certification to administer general anesthesia and parenteral sedation by completing “one year of post-doctoral [*2]training in anesthesiology acceptable to the [D]epartment [of Education]” (8 NYCRR former 61.10 [c] [1] [emphasis added]).”
An expert in a main specialty can credibly opine on the expertise of an expert in a sub-specialty, where as here, the training is comparable.
