According to the Opinion, in this case, the Plaintiff’s medical expert testified at trial with regards to the Plaintiff’s need for a fusion surgery. The defense asserted that such testimony regarding spinal surgery was outside of the Plaintiff’s expert’s pre-trial report and was therefore in violation of the fair scope rule.
The doctor’s pre-trial expert report provided, “I would recommend that the patient see a spine surgery for further evaluation of his neck symptoms and possible pain management.”
During the doctor’s trial deposition, on direct examination, the doctor testified that, “…the main treatment for this would be a spinal fusion, with plates and screws, at 5 different levels.”
On cross-examination, the expert was questioned with regards to the line quoted above from his expert report. In response to that question, the expert stated that, “Well it’s – that may not be stated clearly. It would be pain management and also seeing a spine surgery. When I send someone to a spine surgery, it’s not just for medication. It’s because I think the patient will ultimately require surgical intervention.”
In determining whether or not the expert’s trial testimony was within the fair scope of his pre-trial report, this trial court relied upon guidance from the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Woodard v. Chatterjee, 827 A.2d 433, 440 (Pa. 2003) and the terms of Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(c), for the law on the fair scope rule.
The trial court in this case noted that the fair scope rule favors the liberal discovery of expert witnesses and disfavors unfair and prejudicial surprise at trial.
However, no specific rule exists as to determining when expert testimony exceeds the fair scope of a pre-trial expert report and that the determination of this issue is to be on a case by case basis.
In this case, the trial court found that it did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Plaintiff’s expert’s trial testimony complied with the fair scope rule. The court held that the testimony did not go beyond the report and was not inconsistent with the report. Rather, the doctor provided a reasonable explanation as to what was contained in the report, which explanation fell under the fair scope rule.
Here, the court felt that the Defendant could have and should have reasonably anticipated the Plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding future spinal surgery from the relevant language in the expert report.
The court also seemingly placed a burden on the defense to conduct additional discovery to gather more information on the Plaintiff’s expert report when the court wrote in this Opinion that the Defendant “failing to conduct discovery to obtain a full explanation of the relevant portion of [the expert’s] report is not the trial court’s error, but the [the Defendant’s]. See Op. at 6.
The trial court ruled that the allowance of the Plaintiff’s expert testimony as the spine surgery was fair under the law cited because any discrepancy between the expert report and the trial testimony did not prevent the Defendant from making any meaningful response and did not mislead the Defendant. The trial court reiterated that the Defendant could have sought clarity of the relevant portion of the expert report in discovery before receiving such elaboration during the cross-examination at the trial deposition.
In this case, the trial court found that it did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Plaintiff’s expert’s trial testimony complied with the fair scope rule. The court held that the testimony did not go beyond the report and was not inconsistent with the report. Rather, the doctor provided a reasonable explanation as to what was contained in the report, which explanation fell under the fair scope rule.
Here, the court felt that the Defendant could have and should have reasonably anticipated the Plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding future spinal surgery from the relevant language in the expert report.
The court also seemingly placed a burden on the defense to conduct additional discovery to gather more information on the Plaintiff’s expert report when the court wrote in this Opinion that the Defendant “failing to conduct discovery to obtain a full explanation of the relevant portion of [the expert’s] report is not the trial court’s error, but the [the Defendant’s]. See Op. at 6.
The trial court ruled that the allowance of the Plaintiff’s expert testimony as the spine surgery was fair under the law cited because any discrepancy between the expert report and the trial testimony did not prevent the Defendant from making any meaningful response and did not mislead the Defendant. The trial court reiterated that the Defendant could have sought clarity of the relevant portion of the expert report in discovery before receiving such elaboration during the cross-examination at the trial deposition.
The trial court did not provide any further guidance on how such discovery on an expert's opinion could have been completed under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
In concluding its statements on this issue, the trial court stated that the allowance of the Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony complied with the fair scope rule and Pennsylvania law such that there is no mistake made at trial by the court. The trial court ruled that there was, therefore, no need for a new trial as requested by the defense.
In this decision, the trial court otherwise ruled that it did not abuse its discretion or err when it denied the Defendant’s post-trial motions seeking a new trial due to an allegedly excessive verdict and/or with regards to the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s request for an remittitur.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Court of Common Pleas Case Alert at www.law.com
In concluding its statements on this issue, the trial court stated that the allowance of the Plaintiff’s expert’s testimony complied with the fair scope rule and Pennsylvania law such that there is no mistake made at trial by the court. The trial court ruled that there was, therefore, no need for a new trial as requested by the defense.
In this decision, the trial court otherwise ruled that it did not abuse its discretion or err when it denied the Defendant’s post-trial motions seeking a new trial due to an allegedly excessive verdict and/or with regards to the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s request for an remittitur.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Court of Common Pleas Case Alert at www.law.com
(July 10, 2024).
Source of above image: Photo by Sora Shimazki on www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.