the basis of the action “arose out of the direct patient care provided to Hinkley during her pregnancy; and the management, treatment, and delivery decisions that were made when she sought medical attention because of decreased fetal movements and contractions.” Id. Because one of the defendants’ experts “did not directly care for, provide treatment or management to, or make delivery decisions for any pregnancy” within the one-year statutory period, the Supreme Court held that the expert did not satisfy the active clinical practice requirement. Id. The Court noted that the expert’s work as a teacher and consultant was insufficient. Id. at 808. Applying the requirements of § 8.01-581.20 and the relevant Virginia Supreme Court precedent, the court 8138, at * 13 (W.D.Va. Feb. 26, 1998) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, because the plaintiff is unable
holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion 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 recognizing that the expert was particularly qualified to give his opinion