(dissenting).
Although the majority opinion correctly sets out the standards for admissible medical expert testimony, it is incorrectly applied in this case. If we are going to change the rule, we should clearly so state so we do not confuse the bench and bar.
In our prior holdings, we have stated that medical experts are qualified to ‘“express their opinions based upon medical certainty or medical probability, but not upon possibility.’ ” Thomas v. St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church, 283 N.W.2d 254, 258 (S.D.1979) (quoting Koenig v. Weber, 174 N.W.2d 218, 224 (1970)). However, in Thomas, we also stated that the purpose of allowing such testimony is to “insure that facts exist as shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence[.]” Thomas, 283 N.W.2d at 258 (citations omitted). In the present case, there were no facts that McCarty’s expert witness could provide that would show the existence of his sterility at the time of conception, to a medical certainty or probability. McCarty’s expert could only testify to a possibility, something that our rule has not allowed prior to this decision.
I would also point out that the citation of Zepp v. Hofmann, 444 N.W.2d 28 (S.D.1989) as support for the majority opinion is inappropriate, as neither the issue nor the facts of Zepp parallel this case. In Zepp, a personal injury case, the plaintiff introduced deposition testimony of two doctors. Zepp, 444 N.W.2d at 30. Prior to the reading of the depositions at trial, the defendant objected to certain portions of the deposition testimony *150of one of the doctors. Id. The trial court refused to rule on the objection stating that it was waived by failing to object at the deposition.” Id. at 32. Thus, the issue faced by this court on appeal was whether or not the objection was waived by the defendant’s failure to object at the deposition. Id. at 33. We ruled that the objection was not waived since the objection could not have been obviated or removed at the deposition. Id. In Zepp, the doctor was asked to give “a medical opinion as to whether the [plaintiffs] injuries were consistent with what allegedly occurred on the day of the incident.” Id. The defendant objected on the ground that the doctor was incompetent to reconstruct the accident. We disagreed, since the question asked only for medical opinion, not accident reconstruction. Id.
The holding announced in the majority opinion is an unwarranted change of our rule on allowing expert medical testimony. I would affirm the trial court.