On one issue, the court confirmed that it was not an abuse of discretion by the trial court to exclude one of the Plaintiff’s identified expert witnesses as cumulative. The court generally noted that cumulative evidence is additional evidence that supports a fact already established by other evidence in the case.
On another issue of note, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirms the well-settled rule that, while treating physicians may testify as experts without being identified under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(a), such doctors are limited to opinions formed in the course of their treatment, not opinions developed in anticipation of litigation.
Here, the court found that the causation opinions of two (2) of the Plaintiff’s treating physicians were properly excluded by the trial court because those physicians only formed their opinions on causation in preparation for this litigation.
The court noted that its review of the medical records from those physicians did not contain any hint of any such opinions on causation. The Superior Court agreed that the exclusion of those opinions on causation were required by the Plaintiff’s failure to identify those experts as expert witnesses for trial during the course of discovery as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.