Clerk of Court For the Court S.P. Davis, Sr. v. Ghali E. Ghali, M.D. And Rabie M. Shanti, M.D.

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
S.P. DAVIS, SR.
VS.
GHALI E. GHALI, M.D. AND RABIE M.
SHANTI, M.D.
No.2020-CC-01260
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: [ApplicantNameRole]; Applying For Supervisory Writ, Parish of Caddo, 1st
Judicial District Court Number(s) 606,543, Court of Appeal, Second Circuit,
Number(s) 53,782-CW;
_ _ _ _ _ _
February 09, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JTG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
Crichton, J., recused.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
February 09, 2021
02/09/2021 "See News Release 006 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents.”

02/09/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2020-CC-01260
S
.P. DAVIS, SR.
VS.
GHALI E. GHALI, M.D. AND RABIE M. SHANTI, M.D.
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 1st Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo
PE
R CURIAM
W
rit granted. For the reasons that follow, we find that the trial court abused
its discretion insofar as its grant of the defendants’ Daubert motion in this case
unduly limited the plaintiff’s expert from testifying regarding the applicable
standard of care.
In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, Dr.
Ghali E. Ghali , failed to meet the applicable standard of care when performing a
transoral robotic-assisted uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (“UPPP”), commonly known
as sleep apne a tongue surgery . The plaintiff contends that Dr. Ghali removed too
much of his soft palate, resulting in speech impairment and regurgitation. The
plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Robert Carpenter, reviewed the relevant records and
concluded that Dr. Ghali breached the applicable standard of care. Defendants filed
a Daubert motion asserting that Dr. Carpenter was not qualified to testif y in this
case according to La. C.E. art. 702 for a number of reasons, including that he has
never performed a robotic UPPP. We disagree.
The trial court granted the defendants ’ Daubert motion in part, stating as
follows:
The Plaintiff, S. P. Davis Sr.’s expert, Dr. Robert Carpenter [,] is
permitted to testify in all areas in the field of Otolaryngology [,] but
cannot testify as to the performance of [r]obotic surgery.

Plaintiff sought supervisory writs with the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, which
were denied.
Reviewing this matter, we note that Dr. Carpenter is an otolaryngologist
with numerous peer -reviewed publications who has been admitted as an expert
witness in his field in several states. He attests that he has performed more than
15,000 otolaryngology surgeries in his career. Though he retired from practice
several years ago and has not performed a robotic UPPP himself, it is undisputed
that he currently is on the teaching staff of Lahey Clinical Medical Center ,
teaching both robotic and non-robotic otolaryngologic surgery.
We agree with the plaintiff’s assertion that the tools used to perform this
surgery do not dictate the standard of care leading up to and during the procedure,
but are merely a choice made by the surgeon in consultation with the patient . We
find that defendants have failed to provide any sound reasoning or evidence to
show the standard of care for a robotic UPPP and a non-robotic UPPP are not the
same; th us, Dr. Carpenter can testify as to the applicable standard of care with
respect to the UPPP at issue in this case. Under these circumstances, we hold that it
was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to limit Dr. Carpenter’s testimony .
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ Daubert motion
insofar as it disallows Dr. Carpenter from testifying as to the applicable standard of
care in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the plaintiff’s writ, thereby ordering that
Dr. Carpenter be allowed to testify as to the applicable standard of care.
GRANTED; REMANDED.