By Kevin L. Connors, Esquire
A recent Order Entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by a Trial Judge, the Honorable Shreeves-Johns, highlights the procedural necessity of qualifying an Expert Witness as, just that, an Expert Witness.
The case was Yeung Woo Lee and Ok H. Lee v. John Bernard and Comcast, with the Plaintiff seeking personal injury damages alleged to have resulted from a motor vehicle accident.
The case proceeded to Trial in Philadelphia, with the Jury rendering a verdict in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Defendants were not the factual cause of any injuries allegedly sustained by one Plaintiff, Yeung Woo Lee, although the Jury did find that the Defendants’ negligence was apparently the factual cause of injuries sustained by the other Plaintiff, Ok H. Lee, who was awarded $5,000.00 in damages.
The Plaintiffs filed Motions for Post-Trial Relief, specifically contending that the Trial Court had improperly precluded the Plaintiffs’ Medical Expert from offering opinions as to the reasonableness and necessity of a laser spinal surgical procedure administered to each Plaintiff.
After the motor vehicle accident, both Plaintiffs underwent surgical procedures that were performed by Dr. Keith Girton at the Laser Spine Institute.
However, Plaintiffs’ counsel produced Expert Reports from the Plaintiffs’ family practitioner, Dr. Gregory Temple, with Dr. Temple offering his “Expert” opinion that the laser spine surgeries were reasonably related to the underlying motor vehicle accident.
During Dr. Temple’s Trial deposition, Dr. Temple testified that the opinions which he was offering, as to the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment received by the Plaintiffs, were being offered “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty”.
Every time that Dr. Temple testified that his opinion was within a “reasonable degree of medical certainty,” defense counsel, as we are wont to do, objected on grounds that Dr. Temple was not a surgeon, and that testimony that he might offer with regard to surgical treatment would be beyond the scope of his expertise.
The objections of defense counsel were then sustained at Trial, with Dr. Temple’s testimony regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the Plaintiffs’ laser spine surgeries being precluded from being presented to the Jury.
Ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motion, the Trial Court held that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the Trial Court, and that Decision will not be disturbed absent a clear indication of that discretion being abused. Bennyhoff v. Pappert, 790 A.2d 313 (2001).
To reverse a Trial Court’s evidentiary ruling, that ruling must not only be erroneous, but must also be harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party. Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp., 799 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2002).
Denying the Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motion, the Trial Court held that Pennsylvania Law requires the Trial Court to determine whether the Expert Witness is qualified to testify regarding the subject matter of the Witness’ testimony.
Before allowing an Expert Witness to give an opinion, the Court must make a preliminary determination that the Witness is legally competent to testify on the issue in question, and that the Expert has the required qualifications to offer an opinion on that matter.
Holding that Dr. Temple, although board-certified in primary care and family medicine, had no experience or training in laser spinal surgery, the Trial Court rejected the argument advanced by Plaintiffs’ counsel that “all medical doctors are qualified to testify concerning medical subjects.”
Instead, the Trial Court held that the knowledge of the Witness must concern the specific injury for which the expertise is offered, in order to properly assist the fact-finder in making factual determinations under McDaniel v. Merck, Sharp and Dohme, 533 A.2d 436 (Pa. 1987).
Since there was no evidence introduced into the record indicating that Dr. Temple possessed the requisite educational experience in laser spinal surgery to render an opinion as to its reasonableness and necessity, the Trial Court held that Dr. Temple did not demonstrate the requisite knowledge or qualifications to testify as to the reasonableness and necessity of the laser spinal surgery procedures administered to the Plaintiffs.
Denying the Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motion, the Trial Court further held that the decision to preclude Dr. Temple’s testimony, as to the reasonableness and necessity of the Plaintiffs’ laser spine surgery, was not prejudicial, particularly since the Jury did not rely upon Dr. Temple’s testimony regarding that procedure.
There being no Trial Court abuse of discretion, or error of Law, the Trial Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Motion, validating the Jury’s verdict.
Clearly the ruling by the Trial Court in Lee v. Bernard, accurately tracks the requirements of Rules 702 and 703 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, requiring Expert Witnesses to be qualified by knowledge, skill, expertise, training, or education.
This ruling further illustrates the necessity of vetting Expert Witnesses, to insure that the opinions that they are being retained to offer, are based on their training, practical expertise, and education, in order to validate the intersection of expertise and opinion.
ConnorsO’Dell LLP
Trust us, we just get it! It is trust well spent!
We defend Employers, Self-Insureds, Insurance Carriers, and Third Party Administrators in Workers’ Compensation matters throughout Pennsylvania. We have over 100 years of cumulative experience defending our clients against compensation-related liabilities, with no attorney in our firm having less than ten (10) years of specialized experience, empowering our Workers’ Compensation practice group attorneys to be more than mere claim denials, enabling us to create the factual and legal leverage to expeditiously resolve claims, in the course of limiting/reducing/extinguishing our clients’ liabilities under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act.
Every member of our Workers’ Compensation practice group is AV rated. Our partnership with the NWCDN magnifies the lens for which our professional expertise imperiously demands that we always be dynamic and exacting advocates for our clients, navigating the frustrating and form-intensive minefield pervasive throughout Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation practice and procedure.
