Here, it is clear, by the conclusion of his testimony, that this misunderstanding had been rectified, and that Dr. LaRocca's testimony establishes that Dr. Daugherty, in his opinion, did not breach the standard of care for this particular operation, and that such an occurrence as the laceration of the blood vessels was a surgical accident, and did not equate with negligence. In Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1983), this Court observed: "Physicians cannot be held to a standard of perfection. From time to time, even the most skilled physician, in the exercise of the utmost care, makes mistakes.

We have never held that this doctrine may be used in a medical malpractice action to prove negligence. The rule in Alabama is that expert medical testimony is required to establish what is and what is not proper medical treatment and procedure. See, Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1983). Expert medical testimony is required in this case to describe the proper use, purpose, insertion, and removal of a Penrose drain. Drs. Halpern and Campbell testified that a Penrose drain is a latex tube, varying in width and length. It is designed to serve as a temporary drain of fluids, infected matter, and other material.

In a case governed by the Act, the plaintiff must offer expert medical testimony as to what is or what is not the proper standard of care, and the lack of such testimony results in the lack of proof essential to establish the plaintiff's case. Rosemont, Inc. v. Marshall, 481 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Ala. 1985); Gilbert v. Campbell, 440 So.2d 1048, 1049 (Ala. 1983); Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1983). The record reflects that a directed verdict was appropriate in this case.

However, since the Robinson decision, the "honest mistake" rule has been followed in this state. See, e.g., Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111 (Ala. 1986); Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1983); Riddlesperger v. UnitedStates, 406 F. Supp. 617 (N.D.Ala. 1976) (applying Alabama law); Piper v. Halford, 247 Ala. 530, 25 So.2d 264 (1946); Ingram v. Harris, 244 Ala. 246, 13 So.2d 48 (1943). However, we note that a growing number of jurisdictions have abandoned the "good faith" rule in recent years.

In support of their position, appellants simply note that both Dr. Hensleigh and Dr. Kitchens were involved in the case and treatment of Arlen Otwell. This fails to establish a scintilla of evidence against either Dr. Hensleigh or Dr. Kitchens. This Court has repeatedly held that in malpractice cases, expert medical testimony is required to establish a scintilla of evidence against a physician. See, Gilbert v. Campbell, 440 So.2d 1048 (Ala. 1983); Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1983). There was no expert testimony elicited that was critical of the care and treatment provided by Dr. Kitchens or Dr. Hensleigh. The only expert that testified that there was a breach of the standard of care was the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Morton. He testified as to the standard of care in answer to hypothetical questions posed by appellant's counsel.

We have never held that this doctrine may be used in a medical malpractice action to prove negligence. The rule in Alabama is that expert medical testimony is required to establish what is and what is not proper medical treatment and procedure. See, Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala. 1983)." 440 So.2d at 1049.