and the circumstances surrounding Bria’s birth. Thus, we focus on the trial court’s determination that Dr. Warner’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because he lacked familiarity with the stan dard of medical care ordinarily used by medical practitioners in the locality and his affidavit failed to set forth facts to indicate a basis for his opinion that Defendants acted negligently. In Pharmaseal the supreme court has indicated that a physician or surgeon from another locality may be competent to testify regarding the standard of care required of a defendant physician or surgeon practicing in New Mexico. See Alfonso v. Lund, 783 F.2d 958, 962 (10th Cir.1986) (construing Pharmaseal); cf. Fabianke v. Weaver, 527 So.2d 1253, 1257-58 (Ala.1988) (<HOLDING>). Pharmaseal invests the trial court with broad
holding that covenants prohibition on the employeedoctor from practicing health care of every nature and kind was unreasonable where the doctor had been employed to practice in the specialty of ophthalmology holding that a  1983 action against a sheriff made the state of alabama a real party in interest holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician holding that a doctor was qualified under daubert to give an expert opinion on standard of medical care based on thirty years of experience as a practicing boardcertified cardiologist and his review of the medical records recognizing competency of obstetriciangynecologist practicing in philadelphia pennsylvania to testify regarding standard of care in calculating delivery date in action brought against general or family physician practicing in red bay alabama