Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Discovery maneuvering - can dr testify when no report?

[CASE] In an unpublished opinion, Div. 2 rules that it was error for the trial court to exclude testimony of defendant's expert.

Plaintiff was injured in a car accident and sued the other driver (and the company the driver worked for). Defendant proposed to call Dr. C as a witness. Plaintiff requested Dr. C's report -- and said that if there wasn't a report, she would schedule a deposition. Defendant said there was no report and plaintiff should depose Dr. C. A month before trial, plaintiff again requested a report, asserting that failure to supply one violated CR 35(b). At trial, plaintiff moved to exclude Dr. C's testimony, and the court granted the motion. The jury awarded the plaintiff some $290,000. Division 2 reversed and remanded, finding that it was error to exclude the testimony. "CR 35(b) requires a report, but only when an examination has been performed under CR 35(a). CR 26(b)(5)(A) requires a summary but not a report." Dr. C had not examined the plaintiff and would have testified based only on medical records. Hudson v. Hapner, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 610 (Wash. App. Apr. 12, 2005), Get a Document - by Citation - 2005 wash app lexis 610.

Categories: , , ,

No comments: