would be a consultant whose connection with the case began during trial preparation rather than with the events upon which plaintiff's claim is based.... A treating doctor, while certainly possessing special knowledge, skill, experience, and training required of a witness testifying as ah expert, typically would be called principally to recount plaintiff's injury and treatment."); see also Huntley v. Foster, 35 Cal. App.4th 753, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 358, 360 (1995); Beck v. Albany Med. Gtr. Hosp., 191 A.D.2d 854, 594 N.Y.S.2d 844, 846 (N.Y.App.Div.1993). Other cases hold that a treating physician need be listed as an expert only when called upon to testify generally about the prevailing standard of care. See Plunkett v. Spaulding, 52 Cal.App.4th 114, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 387 (CaI.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Duke Univ., 325 N.C. 152, 381
holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury 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 holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible