concurring in result.
I concur in result. The majority believes there are three things wrong with Shroe-der’s affidavit. I think there are two. I agree that 1) Shroeder’s affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate that he was familiar with the standard of care for a specialist in pulmonary diseases and critical care medicine and 2) the affidavit did not establish a genuine issue regarding causation — although Shroeder claimed that an anesthesiologist should have been called to perform the procedure, he did not allege that the failure to do so — or that any act or omission of Dr. Gammon — proximately caused Bethke’s injuries or death. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Shroeder could not demonstrate competency to testify as an expert based solely on his statement that he was familiar with the standard of care because he *576practiced in a “comparable” community, Green Bay, Wisconsin. Although, admittedly, the affidavit does not show why the communities were similar for medical purposes, such explanation is not required in a summary judgment situation. See Yang v. Stafford (1987), Ind.App., 515 N.E.2d 1157; Summit Bank v. Panos, M.D. (1991), Ind. App., 570 N.E.2d 960.