Title: Oliphant v. Ries

State: kentucky

Issuer: Kentucky Supreme Court

Document:

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 14, 2019 TO BE PUBLISHED 2017-SC-000208-DG RICHARD C. OLIPHANT, M.D. AND LOUISVILLE PHYSICIANS FOR WOMEN, PLLC ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS V. CASE NO. 2011-CA-000100-MR JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 05-CI-002925 BILLIE JO RIES; BILLIE JO RIES, AS NEXT FRIEND OF INFANT CHILD, LAUREN ELIZABETH RIES; KEVIN RIES; AND KEVIN RIES, AS NEXT FRIEND OF INFANT CHILD, LAUREN ELIZABETH RIES APPELLANTS APPELLEES OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES REVERSING AND REINSTATING Laur e n Rie s w as bo r n in 1997 w ith mul tipl e d isabil itie s as a r e sul t o f me d ic al c o mpl ic atio ns be fo r e and d ur ing bir th. In 2010, afte r ye ar s o f me d ic al ne gl ige nc e l itigatio n be tw e e n the Rie s famil y and Laur e n’s d o c to r s and the ho spital , a Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t jur y r e nd e r e d a v e r d ic t in fav o r o f the d e fe nd ants and the tr ial c o ur t e nte r e d a jud gme nt to that e ffe c t. The Co ur t o f Appe al s initial l y r e v e r se d and o r d e r e d a ne w tr ial d ue to a Daubert issue that it c o nc l ud e d the tr ial c o ur t had d e c id e d e r r o ne o usl y, but this Co ur t unanimo usl y r e v e r se d and r e mand e d to the appe l l ate c o ur t fo r c o nsid e r atio n o f a se c o nd i issue r aise d by the Rie se s that had no t be e n ad d r e sse d . Oliphant v. Ries, 460 S.W.3d 889 (Ky. 2015). On r e mand a d iv id e d appe l l ate pane l r e v e r se d again, ho l d ing that the tr ial c o ur t e r r e d by l imiting an e xpe r t’s te stimo ny. The c ase is no w be fo r e this Co ur t a se c o nd time o n d isc r e tio nar y r e v ie w . Find ing no e r r o r in the tr ial c o ur t’s c hal l e nge d r ul ing, w e r e v e r se and r e instate the jud gme nt. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On Januar y 20, 1997, Bil l ie Jo Rie s w as 36-w e e ks pr e gnant w ith a baby gir l , Laur e n. At appr o ximate l y 5:00 a.m., Rie s d isc o v e r e d that she w as e xpe r ie nc ing br ight r e d v aginal bl e e d ing. Rie s and he r husband c o ntac te d the o n-c al l o bste tr ic ian fo r he r d o c to r ’s o ffic e , Dr . Ric har d Ol iphant o f Lo uisv il l e Physic ians fo r Wo me n, w ho instr uc te d the m to go to the ho spital . Dr . Ol iphant be l ie v e d that Rie s had suffe r e d a par tial pl ac e ntal abr uptio n, w hic h r e quir e d ur ge nt, but no t e me r ge nt, atte ntio n. The Rie se s w e nt to Baptist East Ho spital (the Ho spital ) and the nur se c al l e d Dr . Ol iphant, w ho w as c o mpl e ting a d e l iv e r y at ano the r ho spital . The nur se info r me d Dr . Ol iphant that Rie s and the baby w e r e r e l ativ e l y stabl e . So o n afte r , the baby’s he ar t r ate d e c e l e r ate d , and the nur se c al l e d to r e que st Dr . Ol iphant’s imme d iate pr e se nc e . Dr . Ol iphant ar r iv e d at the Ho spital and pe r fo r me d an e me r ge nc y C-se c tio n, d e l iv e r ing Laur e n at 6:59 a.m. In ad d itio n to the po ssibl e pl ac e ntal abr uptio n, Rie s appar e ntl y al so suffe r e d fr o m a so me w hat r ar e and d ange r o us c o nd itio n kno w n as v asa pr e v ia w ith v e l ame nto us inse r tio n, w hic h w as unkno w n to the me d ic al staff that 2 d e l iv e r e d Laur e n.1 One o f the se c o nd itio ns c ause d Laur e n to bl e e d in ute r o and l o se appr o ximate l y o ne -thir d to o ne -hal f o f he r bl o o d v o l ume . Whil e the par tie s str o ngl y d isagr e e as to w he the r Laur e n’s bl e e d ing o c c ur r e d be fo r e o r afte r the Rie se s ar r iv e d at the Ho spital , Laur e n w as injur e d as a r e sul t and is no w se v e r e l y d isabl e d . In 2005, the Rie se s, o n be hal f o f the mse l v e s and Laur e n, sue d the Ho spital , Lo uisv il l e Physic ians fo r Wo me n, Dr . Ol iphant, Dr . To nya Ro binso n (the ne o nato l o gist w ho tr e ate d Laur e n at bir th), and Dr . Ro binso n’s pr ac tic e (c o l l e c tiv e l y “the De fe nd ants ”) in Je ffe r so n Cir c uit Co ur t. At tr ial , the Rie se s ar gue d that the majo r ity o f Laur e n’s bl o o d l o ss o c c ur r e d afte r she ar r iv e d at the Ho spital and he r injur ie s r e sul te d fr o m the d e l ay in d e l iv e r ing the baby, and the inad e quate c ar e Laur e n r e c e iv e d afte r d e l iv e r y. The De fe nd ants ar gue d that the majo r ity o f Laur e n’s bl o o d l o ss o c c ur r e d be fo r e she ar r iv e d at the Ho spital and the r e fo r e he r injur ie s w e r e no t pr e v e ntabl e . We r e v ie w the pr e tr ial pr o c e e d ings r e l e v ant to the issue be fo r e us ge ne r al l y, w ith r e fe r e nc e to ad d itio nal d e tail s as ne c e ssar y in o ur anal ysis. 1 Vasa pr e v ia o c c ur s w he n the fe tal bl o o d v e sse l s c r o ss o v e r the c e r v ix, und e r ne ath the baby, c r e ating a r isk that the bl o o d v e sse l s w il l r uptur e o r c o mpr e ss, c ausing the baby to bl e e d o ut o r suffe r a l ac k o f o xyge n. Cathe r ine Ebbing, e t al . Prevalence, Risk. Factors and Outcomes of Velamentous and Marginal Cord Insertions, PLo S One: A Peer Reviewed, Open Access Journal (Jul y 30, 2013) https://w w w .nc bi.nl m.nih.go v /pmc /ar tic l e s/PMC372821 If. Ve l ame nto us inse r tio n o c c ur s w he n the umbil ic al v e sse l s inse r t into the me mbr ane s be fo r e the y r e ac h the pl ac e nta. This r e sul ts in a l ac k o f pr o te c tio n o f the umbil ic al v e sse l s, inc r e asing the r isk that the v e sse l s w il l r uptur e . Id. 3 Fr o m 2005 to 2010, the par tie s e ngage d in e xte nsiv e d isc o v e r y. In l ate 2009, the par tie s fil e d the ir initial e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e s. The Rie se s ’ e xpe r ts inc l ud e d Dr . Car o l yn Cr aw fo r d , a ne o nato l o gist, and Dr . Zane Br o w n, a mate r nal -fe tal me d ic ine spe c ial ist. The De fe nd ants ’ d isc l o sur e inc l ud e d Dr . Jay Go l d smith, a ne o nato l o gist, as o ne o f the ir e xpe r ts w ho w o ul d te stify that Dr . Ro binso n and the Ho spital nur sing staff c o mpl ie d w ith the stand ar d o f c ar e . The d isc l o sur e al so ind ic ate d that Dr . Go l d smith r e se r v e d the r ight to fo r m ad d itio nal o pinio ns base d o n o the r e xpe r ts ’ d e po sitio ns. In Mar c h 2010, the par tie s d e po se d Dr . Cr aw fo r d , the Rie se s ’ e xpe r t, w ho br ie fl y d isc usse d e quil ibr atio n — the pr o c e ss by w hic h the c ar d io -v asc ul ar syste m take s fl uid s fr o m o the r par ts o f the bo d y to c o mpe nsate fo r l o st bl o o d — and the l e v e l o f he mo gl o bin in Laur e n’s bl o o d .2 In Apr il 2010, the par tie s d e po se d Dr . Go l d smith. Dr . Go l d smith o pine d that Laur e n’s bl o o d l o ss o c c ur r e d be fo r e she ar r iv e d at the Ho spital be c ause e quil ibr atio n take s tw o to fo ur ho ur s and Laur e n’s he mo gl o bin l e v e l s w e r e d il ute d at bir th. In his o pinio n, this sugge ste d that he r bo d y had time to d r aw fl uid s (w hic h d o no t c o ntain he mo gl o bin) fr o m he r o the r tissue s afte r he r bl o o d l o ss o c c ur r e d . Dr . Go l d smith no te d that if Laur e n had bl e d at the Ho spital imme d iate l y pr io r to 2 “He mo gl o bin is the pr o te in c o ntaine d in r e d bl o o d c e l l s that is r e spo nsibl e fo r d e l iv e r y o f o xyge n to the tissue s. To e nsur e ad e quate tissue o xyge natio n, a suffic ie nt he mo gl o bin l e v e l must be maintaine d .” Wal ke r HK, e t al ., e d ito r s. Hemaglobin and Hematocrit, CLINICAL METHODS: The HISTORY, PHYSICAL, AND LABORATORY EXAMINATIONS. 3r d e d itio n. (1990). https://w w w .nc bi.nl m.nih.go v /bo o ks/NBK201/. 4 d e l iv e r y, he r bo d y w o ul d no t hav e had time to e quil ibr ate and he r he mo gl o bin l e v e l s w o ul d no t hav e be e n d il ute d . The Rie se s d ispute d Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny fr o m the be ginning o f the c ase . Dr . Go l d smith ’s c al c ul atio n, d isc usse d in d e tail in the Apr il d e po sitio n, r e ste d o n the assumptio n that fe tuse s hav e the same e quil ibr atio n r ate as ad ul ts and c hil d r e n, d e spite his inabil ity to po int to spe c ific stud ie s to suppo r t his the o r y.3 Whe n the d e po sitio n r e sume d o ne mo nth l ate r , in May 2010, Dr . Go l d smith r e v e al e d that he c o ul d no t find any stud ie s pr o v ing that fe tuse s e quil ibr ate at the same r ate as po st-bir th humans. He no te d that suc h r e se ar c h, w hic h w o ul d r e quir e inte ntio nal l y c ausing fe tuse s to bl e e d to me asur e the ir e quil ibr atio n r ate , w o ul d be une thic al . On Jul y 12, 2010, the Rie se s fil e d a suppl e me ntal e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e stating that o ne o f the ir pr e v io usl y d isc l o se d e xpe r ts, Dr . Br o w n, w o ul d te stify abo ut the e quil ibr atio n r ate o f fe tuse s and his o pinio n that fe tal e quil ibr atio n r ate s d iffe r fr o m c hil d and ad ul t e quil ibr atio n r ate s.4 Thr e e d ays e ar l ie r , d ur ing he r se c o nd d e po sitio n o n Jul y 9, 2010, Dr . Cr aw fo r d had str o ngl y d isagr e e d w ith Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n and d e te r minatio n o f w he n Laur e n’s l o w e st he mo gl o bin l e v e l s o c c ur r e d . Dr . 3 Dr . Go l d smith ’s c al c ul atio ns inv o l v e d a mathe matic al fo r mul a that util ize d to tal bl o o d v o l ume , he mato c r it l e v e l , he mo gl o bin l e v e l , and the r ate o f e quil ibr atio n o f a human fe tus. He mato c r it is a me asur e me nt c o mpar ing the numbe r o f r e d bl o o d c e l l s to to tal bl o o d v o l ume , r e v e al ing w he the r a pe r so n has a no r mal amo unt o f r e d bl o o d c e l l s, to o many, o r to o fe w . Wal ke r , supra no te 2. 4 That d isc l o sur e is quo te d v e r batim and d isc usse d infra. 5 Cr aw fo r d ind ic ate d that she w o ul d te stify abo ut he r d isagr e e me nt w ith Dr . Go l d smith if que stio ne d at tr ial . On Jul y 12, 2010, the Rie se s al so fil e d a mo tio n in limine se e king to e xc l ud e Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n te stimo ny al to ge the r be c ause it w as no t spe c ific al l y me ntio ne d in his e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e . In ad d itio n, the Rie se s so ught to e xc l ud e te stimo ny abo ut nuc l e ate d r e d bl o o d c e l l s (NRBCs) fr o m ano the r e xpe r t w itne ss (Dr . Tho mas Str o ng, Jr .)5 fo r the same r e aso n. Afte r a br ie f he ar ing o n August 11, the tr ial c o ur t d e nie d the mo tio n to e xc l ud e Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny but o r d e r e d that the Rie se s c o ul d o btain an ad d itio nal e xpe r t to r e but the NRBC te stimo ny be c ause the y d id no t hav e an e xpe r t o n that subje c t. On August 26, 2010, the Rie se s ad d e d Dr . Je ffr e y Phe l an as an e xpe r t w itne ss. No tabl y, the d isc l o sur e state d that Dr . Phe l an w o ul d te stify abo ut NRBCs and al so Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns, d e spite the tr ial c o ur t’s l imitatio n o n the ne w e xpe r t. The jur y tr ial be gan o n August 31, 2010. Pr io r to Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny, the Rie se s info r me d the tr ial c o ur t that the y inte nd e d to e l ic it te stimo ny fr o m him r e gar d ing NRBCs and Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n. The De fe nd ants o bje c te d and r e mind e d the tr ial jud ge o f the pr io r r ul ing that Dr . Phe l an, the ne w w itne ss, w o ul d be l imite d to te stifying abo ut NRBCs. The tr ial c o ur t agr e e d w ith the De fe nd ants and no te d that the Rie se s had o the r w itne sse s w ho c o ul d te stify abo ut e quil ibr atio n. Afte r the tr ial c o ur t l imite d Dr . 5 Dr . Str o ng w as d e po se d in June 2010. 6 Phe l an’s te stimo ny, fo r r e aso ns unkno w n, the Rie se s d id no t ask e ithe r Dr . Cr aw fo r d o r Dr . Br o w n to te stify at tr ial abo ut Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n. Pr io r to Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny at tr ial , the Rie se s mo v e d fo r a Daubert6 he ar ing o n the r e l iabil ity o f his c al c ul atio ns. The y ar gue d that Dr . Go l d smith ’s o pinio n w as no t suppo r te d by stud ie s sho w ing that the fe tal e quil ibr atio n r ate is the same as in po st-bir th humans. The De fe nd ants r e spo nd e d by pr o v id ing stud ie s r e gar d ing the e quil ibr atio n r ate in fe tal she e p, w hic h w e r e c o nsiste nt w ith Dr . Go l d smith ’s po sitio n, and by al so ar guing that the Rie se s ’ mid -tr ial Daubert c hal l e nge w as untime l y. Afte r c o nsid e r ing the ar gume nts, the tr ial c o ur t agr e e d w ith the De fe nd ants that the Rie se s ’ c hal l e nge w as untime l y. He fur the r d e te r mine d that Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny w as appr o pr iate und e r Daubert and that the Rie se s ’ ar gume nt w e nt to the w e ight, r athe r than the ad missibil ity, o f the te stimo ny. Ho w e v e r , the tr ial c o ur t pr o hibite d Dr . Go l d smith fr o m r e fe r r ing to the she e p stud ie s, w hic h he had no t pr e v io usl y pr o d uc e d . Thr o ugho ut the tr ial , the jur y he ar d te stimo ny fr o m nume r o us tr e ating and e xpe r t me d ic al w itne sse s. So me te stifie d that Laur e n w as ir r e par abl y injur e d be fo r e she ar r iv e d at the Ho spital , and o the r s te stifie d she w as injur e d by the De fe nd ants ’ ac tio ns o r inac tio ns. Othe r s c o nc l ud e d that it w as impo ssibl e to say fo r c e r tain. The w itne sse s base d the ir timing o n a v ar ie ty o f 6 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 7 fac to r s, inc l ud ing sc ans o f Laur e n’s br ain, e xaminatio n o f Bil l ie Jo Rie s ’s pl ac e nta and umbil ic al c o r d , Laur e n’s he ar t r ate , and bl o o d anal ysis. Afte r c o nsid e r ing al l o f this e v id e nc e in a fo ur -w e e k tr ial , the jur y r e tur ne d a unanimo us v e r d ic t in fav o r o f the De fe nd ants. The Rie se s appe al e d , r aising tw o ar gume nts: (1) that the tr ial c o ur t abuse d its d isc r e tio n by ad mitting Dr . Go l d smith ’s sc ie ntific al l y unr e l iabl e e quil ibr atio n te stimo ny; and (2) the tr ial c o ur t abuse d its d isc r e tio n by r e fusing to al l o w Dr . Phe l an to r e but Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n te stimo ny. The Co ur t o f Appe al s unanimo usl y agr e e d w ith the Rie se s that Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n te stimo ny sho ul d hav e be e n e xc l ud e d . The appe l l ate pane l fo und that Dr . Go l d smith ’s o pinio n w as no t suppo r te d by r e l iabl e sc ie ntific pr o o f and , e v e n if the Rie se s ’ Daubert c hal l e nge w as inad e quate l y r aise d at the tr ial c o ur t, the ad missio n o f Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny c o nstitute d pal pabl e e r r o r , r e quir ing r e v e r sal . That appe l l ate c o ur t c o nc l ud e d the r e w as a r e aso nabl e po ssibil ity that the jur y w o ul d hav e r e tur ne d a d iffe r e nt v e r d ic t abse nt Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns. Hav ing r e v e r se d the tr ial c o ur t as to the Rie se s ’ fir st ar gume nt, the Co ur t o f Appe al s d e c l ine d to ad d r e ss the se c o nd ar gume nt r e gar d ing Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny. The De fe nd ants appe al e d ,7 ar guing that the Co ur t o f Appe al s impe r missibl y substitute d its find ings fo r that o f the tr ial c o ur t as to Dr . 7 Dr . Ro binso n and he r pr ac tic e gr o up w e r e o r iginal l y par tie s to the fir st appe al to the Co ur t o f Appe al s, but subse que ntl y e nte r e d a se ttl e me nt agr e e me nt w ith the Rie se s afte r the Co ur t o f Appe al s r e nd e r e d its fir st o pinio n. Ad d itio nal l y, the Rie se s o r iginal l y name d Baptist East Ho spital as a d e fe nd ant but the se tw o par tie s e nte r e d an agr e e d o r d e r o f d ismissal afte r tr ial , simul tane o usl y w ith the c ir c uit c o ur t’s e ntr y o f 8 Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny. This Co ur t r e v e r se d , find ing that Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n w as ad e quate l y suppo r te d and w as the r e fo r e ad missibl e und e r Daubert. 460 S.W.3d at 889-904. This Co ur t al so he l d that e v e n if the tr ial c o ur t had e r r e d by ad mitting the te stimo ny, the e r r o r w as har ml e ss be c ause nume r o us w itne sse s te stifie d that Laur e n be gan bl e e d ing be fo r e she ar r iv e d at the Ho spital and this o the r e v id e nc e w as suffic ie nt to suppo r t the jur y’s v e r d ic t. Be c ause this Co ur t fo und no e r r o r in the ad missio n o f Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny, w e r e mand e d to the Co ur t o f Appe al s fo r c o nsid e r atio n o f the se c o nd issue r aise d by the Rie se s o n appe al , i.e., the l imitatio ns o n Dr . Phe l an’s e xpe r t te stimo ny. On r e mand , this c ase w as assigne d to the same Co ur t o f Appe al s ’ pane l that issue d the fir st d e c isio n. In a 2-1 d e c isio n, the Co ur t o f Appe al s fo und that the tr ial c o ur t unfair l y pr e jud ic e d the Rie se s by: (1) al l o w ing Dr . Go l d smith to te stify abo ut his e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n d e spite the De fe nd ants ’ fail ur e to d isc l o se the c al c ul atio n in the ir initial o r suppl e me ntal e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e s; and (2) pr o hibiting Dr . Phe l an fr o m r e butting Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n. The appe l l ate pane l d e te r mine d that the tr ial c o ur t “se r io usl y and ad v e r se l y impac te d ” the Rie se s ’ abil ity to pr e par e the ir c ase fo r tr ial and that the r e sul ting pr e jud ic e r e quir e d r e v e r sal . a jud gme nt c o nsiste nt w ith the jur y v e r d ic t. The r e fo r e Dr . Ro binso n, he r pr ac tic e , and Baptist East Ho spital ar e no l o nge r par tie s to this appe al . The o nl y r e maining par tie s ar e Dr . Ric har d Ol iphant and his pr ac tic e gr o up, Lo uisv il l e Physic ians fo r Wo me n, PLLC. Ho w e v e r , to av o id c o nfusio n, the se par tie s w il l c o ntinue to be r e fe r e nc e d as “the De fe nd ants.” 9 Jud ge Cl ayto n d isse nte d , r e aso ning that the Rie se s ’ abil ity to pr e par e fo r tr ial w as no t impair e d by a l ac k o f fo r mal d isc l o sur e be c ause Dr . Go l d smith r e v e al e d his e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n d ur ing his d e po sitio ns (in Apr il and May), w hic h o c c ur r e d appr o ximate l y fo ur mo nths be fo r e tr ial . Ad d itio nal l y, the Rie se s had o the r pr e v io usl y d isc l o se d e xpe r ts (Dr s. Cr aw fo r d and Br o w n) w ho c o ul d hav e te stifie d in r e buttal r e gar d ing Dr . Go l d smith ’s c al c ul atio ns. We gr ante d d isc r e tio nar y r e v ie w to d e te r mine w he the r the tr ial c o ur t e r r e d in l imiting Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny to NRBCs, the r e by pr e c l ud ing him fr o m r e butting Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns. Find ing that the Rie se s w e r e aw ar e o f Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny fo r appr o ximate l y fo ur mo nths be fo r e tr ial , and that the y had o the r w itne sse s w ho w e r e e xpe c te d to , and w o ul d hav e be e n al l o w e d to , te stify abo ut the e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns, w e se e no e r r o r in the tr ial c o ur t’s r ul ing l imiting the te stimo ny o f a ne w e xpe r t name d fiv e d ays be fo r e tr ial , and no pr e jud ic e justifying a ne w tr ial . Ac c o r d ingl y, w e r e v e r se the Co ur t o f Appe al s and r e instate the jud gme nt o f the tr ial c o ur t. ANALYSIS The so l e issue be fo r e us is w he the r the tr ial c o ur t e r r e d by l imiting Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny to NRBCs and no t al l o w ing him to pr o v id e te stimo ny r e butting Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns. “[Que stio ns c o nc e r ning the sc o pe o f e v id e nc e ar e l e ft to the d isc r e tio n o f the tr ial c o ur t to d e te r mine w he the r to ad mit and e xc l ud e e v id e nc e .” Baptist Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. Miller, 177 S.W.3d 676, 684 (Ky. 2005). An appe l l ate c o ur t r e v ie w s a tr ial c o ur t’s d e c isio n to l imit e xpe r t te stimo ny fo r an abuse o f d isc r e tio n. Id. The 10 tr ial c o ur t abuse s its d isc r e tio n w he n the “d e c isio n w as ar bitr ar y, unr e aso nabl e , unfair , o r unsuppo r te d by so und l e gal pr inc ipl e s.” Id. Afte r r e v ie w ing the r e c o r d , w e find no abuse o f d isc r e tio n and thus no e r r o r r e quir ing a ne w tr ial . I. The trial court did not err in limiting Dr. Phelan’s testimony to NRBCs. In a pr e tr ial c o nfe r e nc e o n August 11, 2010, afte r the tr ial c o ur t d e nie d the Rie se s’Jul y 12, 2010 mo tio n to e xc l ud e Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n te stimo ny and Dr . Str o ng’s NRBC te stimo ny, the tr ial c o ur t r ul e d that the Rie se s w o ul d be al l o w e d to suppl e me nt the ir pr o o f w ith an e xisting o r ne w w itne ss to r e spo nd to the NRBC te stimo ny. In c o mpl ianc e w ith the tr ial c o ur t’s r ul ing, the Rie se s name d Dr . Phe l an as an e xpe r t w itne ss in a d isc l o sur e o n August 26, 2010, fiv e d ays be fo r e the star t o f tr ial . The d isc l o sur e state d that Dr . Phe l an w o ul d r e fute Dr . Str o ng’s o pinio ns o n the timing o f the injur y base d o n NRBCs, and al so r e but Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns fo r timing the fe tal bl e e d and Laur e n’s injur ie s. The De fe nd ants o bje c te d that the Rie se s had e xc e e d e d the tr ial c o ur t’s r ul ing by o ffe r ing Dr . Phe l an as an e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n e xpe r t. In a fifty-minute he ar ing o n Se pte mbe r 1, 2010, the par tie s ad d r e sse d the sc o pe o f Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny and the tr ial c o ur t he ar d e xte nsiv e ar gume nts fr o m bo th sid e s. The tr ial c o ur t r e c o gnize d that al l o w ing the Rie se s to br ing in a ne w e xpe r t that l ate in the pr o c e e d ings w as an “e xtr ao r d inar y d e c isio n” fal l ing “v e r y he av il y” o n the De fe nd ants, and ul timate l y r e ite r ate d that Dr . Phe l an w o ul d be l imite d to te stifying abo ut NRBCs. On Se pte mbe r 9, 2010, 11 the Rie se s fil e d ano the r ame nd e d e xpe r t d isc l o sur e , w hic h again state d that Dr . Phe l an w o ul d d ispute Dr . Go l d smith ’s mathe matic al c al c ul atio ns use d to time Laur e n’s injur ie s. The tr ial c o ur t c o nd uc te d ye t ano the r he ar ing o n Se pte mbe r 10, 2010, w he r e the Rie se s o nc e again ar gue d that Dr . Phe l an sho ul d be pe r mitte d to r e but bo th Dr . Str o ng’s NRBC o pinio ns and Dr . Go l d smith ’s c al c ul atio ns. At this thir d he ar ing, the Rie se s ar gue d that Dr . Str o ng’s initial e xpe r t d isc l o sur e d id no t ind ic ate that he w o ul d te stify as to c ausatio n, but at his d e po sitio n he state d that the NRBCs and Laur e n’s bl o o d c o unt afte r d e l iv e r y sugge ste d that the injur y happe ne d be fo r e she ar r iv e d at the Ho spital . The Rie se s al so state d that the o r ie s o n NRBCs inv o l v e l o o king at o the r fac to r s in ad d itio n to NRBC c o unts. No tabl y, the tr ial c o ur t aske d Rie se s ’ c o unse l w he the r he r o the r w itne sse s d e al t w ith tho se o the r fac to r s and she ac kno w l e d ge d that the y d id . Afte r he ar ing ar gume nts, the tr ial c o ur t r e ite r ate d its d e c isio n to l imit Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny to NRBCs. The tr ial c o ur t no te d that if the Rie se s had an abso l ute abse nc e o f pr o o f o n the o the r fac to r s, e.g., e quil ibr atio n, it may hav e r ul e d in the Rie se s ’ fav o r , but that the r e w e r e o the r , pr e v io usl y id e ntifie d w itne sse s that c o ul d te stify to that e ffe c t.8 The tr ial c o ur t state d that the Rie se s had “c o me up sho r t” be c ause o f the l ate d isc l o sur e o n 8 Dr . Cr aw fo r d had te stifie d in he r se c o nd d e po sitio n that she w o ul d te stify at tr ial o n e quil ibr atio n and the Jul y suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e fo r Dr . Br o w n ind ic ate d that he w o ul d al so te stify o n that subje c t. 12 the NRBC issue , making it fair to l imit the ne w w itne ss ’s te stimo ny to that issue al o ne . The Co ur t o f Appe al s he l d that the De fe nd ants v io l ate d Ke ntuc ky Rul e s o f Civ il Pr o c e d ur e (CR) 26.02 and CR 26.05 by fail ing to se aso nabl y suppl e me nt Dr . Go l d smith ’s d isc l o sur e w ith his e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns timing Laur e n’s in ute r o bl e e d . Ho w e v e r , w e se e no v io l atio n. CR 26.02(4)(a)(i) r e quir e s par tie s to id e ntify e ac h pe r so n w ho m the o the r par ty e xpe c ts to c al l as an e xpe r t w itne ss at tr ial , to state the subje c t matte r o n w hic h the e xpe r t is e xpe c te d to te stify, and to state the substanc e o f the fac ts and o pinio ns to w hic h the e xpe r t is e xpe c te d to te stify and a summar y o f the gr o und s fo r e ac h o pinio n. Subse c tio n (4)(a)(ii) o f that r ul e pr o v id e s in pe r tine nt par t: Afte r a par ty has id e ntifie d an e xpe r t w itne ss in ac c o r d anc e w ith par agr aph (4)(a)(i) o f this r ul e o r o the r w ise , any o the r par ty may o btain fur the r d isc o v e r y o f the e xpe r t w itne ss by d e po sitio n upo n o r al e xaminatio n o r w r itte n que stio ns pur suant to Rul e s 30 and 31. CR 26.05(a) r e quir e s a par ty to “se aso nabl y suppl e me nt” his CR 26.02 e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e s. The De fe nd ants initial l y d isc l o se d Dr . Go l d smith as an e xpe r t ne ar l y e ight mo nths be fo r e tr ial , and the ir d isc l o sur e pr o v id e d the subje c t matte r o f his te stimo ny and the substanc e o f his o pinio ns, as r e quir e d by CR 26.02. Impo r tantl y, the d isc l o sur e state d that “Dr . Go l d smith r e se r v e s the r ight to fo r m ad d itio nal o pinio ns fo l l o w ing the d e po sitio n o f Car o l yn Cr aw fo r d [the Rie se s ’ ne o nato l o gy e xpe r t] and base d upo n any ad d itio nal d isc o v e r y take n subse que nt to this d isc l o sur e .” 13 Dr . Cr aw fo r d w as d e po se d tw ic e . Dur ing he r fir st d e po sitio n o n Mar c h 24, 2010, Dr . Cr aw fo r d w as aske d o n c r o ss-e xaminatio n to pr o v id e he r o pinio ns r e gar d ing c al c ul atio ns o f bl o o d l o ss, e quil ibr atio n, and the timing o f the bl e e d . Al tho ugh c o unse l fo r Dr . Ro binso n, the que stio ne r at that po int in the d e po sitio n, d id state , as the Rie se s e mphasize , “I’m no t go ing to pl ay my tr ump c ar d to d ay,” the Rie se s ’ c o unse l imme d iate l y r e spo nd e d , “We kno w w hat it is.” Thus, the r e c o r d suppo r ts that o n Mar c h 24, 2010, the Rie se s ’ c o unse l l ike l y kne w that e quil ibr atio n and the timing o f the bl e e d w o ul d be a fo c us o f the De fe nd ants ’ e xpe r t te stimo ny. If the r e w e r e d o ubts, o ne mo nth l ate r at Dr . Go l d smith ’s d e po sitio n, he te stifie d abo ut the timing o f the bl e e d , e quil ibr atio n, and his c al c ul atio ns, me aning the e quil ibr atio n issue and Dr . Go l d smith ’s inte nd e d te stimo ny w e r e kno w n to al l par tie s no l ate r than Apr il 23, 2010, mo r e than fo ur mo nths pr io r to tr ial . Dr . Cr aw fo r d ’s se c o nd d e po sitio n o c c ur r e d o n Jul y 9, 2010, and she state d that she str o ngl y d isagr e e d w ith Dr . Go l d smith ’s o pinio ns o n e quil ibr atio n, w hic h he had o ffe r e d in the tw o inte r v e ning d e po sitio ns in Apr il and May. Spe c ific al l y, she state d that the o nl y stud ie s abo ut e quil ibr atio n r ate in ute r o w e r e r e l ate d to she e p no t humans, and that she be l ie v e d e quil ibr atio n in ute r o d iffe r e d fr o m e quil ibr atio n in the fir st w e e k o f l ife . Fur the r , Dr . Cr aw fo r d state d that she v igo r o usl y d isagr e e d w ith Dr . Go l d smith abo ut Laur e n’s he mo gl o bin and he mato c r it. One o f the main pur po se s o f CR 26.02 is to se c ur e info r matio n r e gar d ing the e xiste nc e o f e v id e nc e that may be use d at tr ial . Maddox v. Grauman, 265 14 S.W.2d 939, 941 (Ky. 1954). Dr . Go l d smith ’s 366 page s o f d e po sitio n te stimo ny (take n in Apr il and May be fo r e the tr ial that star te d o n August 31) ad e quate l y info r me d the Rie se s to e xpe c t the e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns as e v id e nc e at tr ial , and the y appe ar e d to be pr e par ing to c o nte st it w ith Dr . Cr aw fo r d . Dr . Cr aw fo r d te stifie d at the fo ur -w e e k tr ial and c o ul d hav e ad d r e sse d this to pic the n, but she d id no t. De spite w hat the r e c o r d r e fl e c ts, the Co ur t o f Appe al s fo und that the De fe nd ants ’ “fail ur e to se aso nabl y d isc l o se the ne w c al c ul atio ns and timing o pinio ns o f Dr . Go l d smith [by fo r mal l y suppl e me nting the ir w itne ss d isc l o sur e ] ‘se r io usl y und e r mine d ’ the Rie se s ’ abil ity to pr e par e the ir c ase fo r tr ial .” We d isagr e e . Dr . Go l d smith pr o v id e d Se pte mbe r tr ial te stimo ny in l ine w ith his d e po sitio n te stimo ny, giv e n in Apr il and May. Al tho ugh the Rie se s c har ac te r ize d bo th Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n te stimo ny and Dr . Str o ng’s NRBC te stimo ny as “ne w e xpe r t o pinio ns ” and “ne w to pic s ” that the y had to find , d isc l o se , and pr o d uc e a suppl e me ntal e xpe r t to r e but at tr ial , this is a misc har ac te r izatio n be c ause the r e w as no thing “ne w ” abo ut Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny. Whil e Dr . Str o ng’s June d e po sitio n te stimo ny r e gar d ing NRBCs w as ar guabl y “ne w ,” Dr . Go l d smith pr e se nte d his mathe matic al info r matio n in his initial Apr il d e po sitio n, mo r e than fo ur mo nths be fo r e tr ial . As o utl ine d supra, the Rie se s ’ e xpe r t, Dr . Cr aw fo r d , se e mingl y w as r e ad y to ad d r e ss e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns, as r e fl e c te d by he r d isagr e e me nt w ith Dr . Go l d smith in he r Jul y d e po sitio n. Mo r e o v e r , Dr . Br o w n, the Rie se s ’ mate r nal - 15 fe tal me d ic ine spe c ial ist, initial l y d isc l o se d in No v e mbe r 2009, w as the subje c t o f the fo l l o w ing Jul y 12, 2010 suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e : Dr . Br o w n w il l te stify that fo l l o w ing d e l iv e r y, it has be e n his e xpe r ie nc e that the pl ac e nta w il l c o ntain in the ne ighbo r ho o d o f 150 c c s o f bl o o d . It is his o pinio n that the e ntir e c ir c ul ating bl o o d suppl y o f a 2 kil o gr am baby w hil e in utero w o ul d be in the r ange o f appr o ximate l y 250 to 300 c c s. The d e fe nse e xpe r ts w ho hav e o pine d o n the e quil ibr atio n and c o mpe nsatio n o f an in utero fe tus hav e no t be e n abl e to pr o v id e any pe e r r e v ie w e d stud ie s o r o the r suppo r t fo r the ir o pinio ns r e gar d ing e quil ibr atio n and c o mpe nsatio n. It is Dr . Br o w n’s o pinio n that the physio l o gic al state o f an in utero fe tus is signific antl y d iffe r e nt fr o m that o f a ne o nate , a c hil d o r that o f an ad ul t. A fe tus suffe r ing a l o ss o f bl o o d v o l ume w il l bo th e quil ibr ate and c o mpe nsate fo r that bl o o d l o ss in w ays that ar e substantial l y d iffe r e nt fr o m ne o nate s, c hil d r e n and ad ul ts. Dr . Br o w n has no t ye t had a ful l o ppo r tunity to r e v ie w al l d e fe nse e xpe r t d e po sitio ns, as suc h, Pl aintiffs r e se r v e the r ight to pr e se nt r e buttal o pinio ns and /o r te stimo ny fr o m Dr . Br o w n abo ut any and al l o pinio ns De fe nd ants ’ e xpe r ts gav e in d e po sitio n. Cl e ar l y, the Rie se s had tw o pr e v io usl y id e ntifie d e xpe r ts w ho w e r e c apabl e o f ad d r e ssing the e quil ibr atio n te stimo ny o f Dr . Go l d smith.9 9 The Co ur t o f Appe al s state d that, d e spite ar gume nts that the Rie se s c o ul d hav e c al l e d Dr . Br o w n to r e but Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny, the abo v e d isc l o sur e r e v e al s that Dr . Br o w n w as no t d isc l o se d as o ffe r ing his o pinio n c o ntr ad ic ting Dr . Go l d smith ’s c al c ul atio ns. Ho w e v e r , Dr . Go l d smith ’s o pinio n and c al c ul atio ns r e ste d o n the assumptio n that fe tuse s e quil ibr ate at the same r ate as ad ul ts and c hil d r e n, and Dr . Br o w n’s suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e state s that a fe tus “e quil ibr ate [s] and c o mpe nsate [s] fo r that bl o o d l o ss in w ays that ar e substantial l y d iffe r e nt fr o m ne o nate s, c hil d r e n and ad ul ts.” Pl ainl y, Dr . Br o w n inte nd e d to c o ntr ad ic t Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny. Fur the r , if Dr . Br o w n w as no t c apabl e o f r e butting Dr . Go l d smith ’s the o r y, the n the r e w as no ne e d fo r the Rie se s to suppl e me nt his e xpe r t d isc l o sur e to spe c ific al l y al l o w him to d o so . 16 The Co ur t o f Appe al s fo c use d o n the De fe nd ants ’ fail ur e to fil e po st­ d e po sitio ns suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e s pe r CR 26.05 o f Dr . Go l d smith ’s o pinio ns as to his c al c ul atio ns use d to time Laur e n’s in ute r o bl e e d and tr e ate d this fail ur e as a v io l atio n o f the l e tte r and spir it o f CR 26.02 and 26.05. The Rie se s so ught to e xc l ud e Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio n fo r the v e r y same r e aso n in the Jul y 12 mo tio n in limine, but the c ir c uit c o ur t appr o pr iate l y d e nie d that mo tio n. This Co ur t has he l d that “the pe r so n r e que sting e xc l usio n o f te stimo ny must sho w pr e jud ic e .” Equitania Ins. Co. v. Slone & Garrett, P.S.C., 191 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Ky. 2006). We c anno t find pr e jud ic e w he n the r e c o r d r e fl e c ts the r e w as c o mpl e te pr e tr ial d isc l o sur e abo ut Dr . Go l d smith ’s e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns in his initial Apr il d e po sitio n and again in a se c o nd d e po sitio n in May sc he d ul e d at the r e que st o f the Rie se s ’ c o unse l .10 As fo r the w itne ss d isc l o sur e s fo und in the r e c o r d , in ad d itio n to the initial De c e mbe r 2009 d isc l o sur e fo r Dr . Go l d smith, the De fe nd ants pr o v id e d a suppl e me ntal e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e und e r CR 26.02 o n Jul y 15, 2010. The d isc l o sur e state d that Dr . Go l d smith w o ul d ad d r e ss any issue br o ught fo r th in the c o ntinue d d isc o v e r y sinc e his initial d isc l o sur e and d e po sitio ns and w o ul d r e but any te stimo ny o ffe r e d by Appe l l e e s ’ e xpe r ts. This d isc l o sur e w as fil e d 10 10 Dr . Ro binso n’s c o unse l mad e Dr . Go l d smith av ail abl e fo r the se c o nd d e po sitio n. The r e c o r d is no t al to ge the r c l e ar abo ut the r e aso ns fo r a se c o nd d e po sitio n. Ho w e v e r , as o ne o f the De fe nd ants ’ c o unse l no te d at the Se pte mbe r 10 he ar ing be fo r e the tr ial c o ur t, it w as “d isinge nuo us ” fo r the Rie se s ’ c o unse l to c har ac te r ize e quil ibr atio n as a “ne w issue ” in the c ase be c ause the issue w as d isc usse d in d e tail in a Go l d smith ’s Apr il d e po sitio n . 17 mo r e than a mo nth be fo r e the fir st d ay o f tr ial . Whil e it is tr ue that the suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e d id no t c o ntain spe c ific info r matio n, the r e w as no ne e d fo r the De fe nd ants to inc l ud e e v e r y d e tail o f Dr . Go l d smith ’s te stimo ny to d ate in the d isc l o sur e , te stimo ny r e fl e c te d in 366 page s o f tr ansc r ipt at tw o d e po sitio ns take n by the Rie se s ’ c o unse l . Dr . Go l d smith te stifie d in d e tail in his d e po sitio ns abo ut his c al c ul atio ns, and the suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e appr o pr iate l y e nc o mpasse d tho se o pinio ns by r e fe r e nc e . Simpl y put, r e quir ing a par ty to suppl e me nt an e xpe r t w itne ss d isc l o sur e e v e r y time an e xpe r t is d e po se d in d isc o v e r y w o ul d be a w aste o f the par ty’s time and r e so ur c e s. De po sitio ns se r v e the same func tio n as CR 26.02 and 26.05 — to r e v e al e v id e nc e , info r matio n and o pinio ns that may be use d at tr ial and the y ar e univ e r sal l y r e c o gnize d as the mo st e ffe c tiv e , d e tail e d me tho d o f o btaining an und e r stand ing o f an o ppo ne nt’s pr o o f. The r ul e s o f d isc o v e r y ar e in pl ac e to l e v e l the pl aying fie l d and e nsur e a fair tr ial , no t to c r e ate pr o c e d ur al tr aps. Mand ating that par tie s summar ize and d isc l o se the e ntir e ty o f a d e po sitio n in a fo r mal CR 26 suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e w o ul d be bur d e nso me and c o unte r pr o d uc tiv e , po te ntial l y c r e ating mo r e o ppo r tunitie s fo r d ispute . A suppl e me ntal d isc l o sur e that simpl y inc o r po r ate s e xpe r t w itne ss d e po sitio ns by r e fe r e nc e se r v e s the same pur po se , but in an e asie r , mo r e e ffic ie nt, and mo r e l o gic al w ay. “Pr e tr ial d isc o v e r y simpl ifie s and c l ar ifie s the issue s in a c ase ; e l iminate s o r signific antl y r e d uc e s the e l e me nt o f sur pr ise ; he l ps to ac hie v e a bal anc e d se ar c h fo r the tr uth, w hic h in tur n he l ps to e nsur e that tr ial s ar e fair . . . .” 18 LaFleur v. Shoney's, Inc., 83 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Ky. 2002). The e xpe r t d isc l o sur e s in this c ase w e r e pr o pe r and ac c o mpl ishe d the pur po se be hind CR 26.02 and the e nsuing d isc o v e r y — mul tipl e d e po sitio ns — ad e quate l y pr e par e d bo th sid e s fo r a fair tr ial . The tr ial c o ur t’s r ul ing d isal l o w ing te stimo ny o n e quil ibr atio n c al c ul atio ns by the ne w l y-name d Dr . Phe l an w as no t an abuse o f d isc r e tio n but r athe r a w ho l l y r e aso nabl e d e c isio n in l ight o f al l the c ir c umstanc e s. The Co ur t o f Appe al s e r r e d in ho l d ing o the r w ise . II. Even if the trial court erred in limiting Dr. Phelan’s testimony, that error was harmless. Al tho ugh the tr ial c o ur t d id no t e r r in l imiting Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny, e v e n if it w e r e an e r r o r , it w as har ml e ss in l ight o f the nume r o us o the r e xpe r ts w ho te stifie d as to the timing o f the fe tal bl e e d . As o ur r ul e state s: No e r r o r in e ithe r the ad missio n o r the e xc l usio n o f e v id e nc e and no e r r o r o r d e fe c t in any r ul ing o r o r d e r o r in anything d o ne o r o mitte d by the c o ur t o r by any o f the par tie s is gr o und fo r gr anting a ne w tr ial o r fo r se tting asid e a v e r d ic t o r fo r v ac ating, mo d ifying, o r o the r w ise d istur bing a jud gme nt o r o r d e r , unl e ss r e fusal to take suc h ac tio n appe ar s to the c o ur t inc o nsiste nt w ith substantial justic e . The c o ur t at e v e r y stage o f the pr o c e e d ing must d isr e gar d any e r r o r o r d e fe c t in the pr o c e e d ing w hic h d o e s no t affe c t the substantial r ights o f the par tie s. CR 61.01. “A no n-c o nstitutio nal e v id e ntiar y e r r o r may be d e e me d har ml e ss . . . if the r e v ie w ing c o ur t c an say w ith fair assur anc e that the jud gme nt w as no t substantial l y sw aye d by the e r r o r .” Winstead v. Commonwealth, 283 S.W.3d 678, 688-89 (Ky. 2009). “The inquir y is no t simpl y w he the r the r e w as e no ugh e v id e nc e to suppo r t the r e sul t. . . [i]t is r athe r , e v e n so , w he the r the 19 e r r o r itse l f had substantial infl ue nc e .” Id. at 689. The l imitatio n o n Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny, e v e n if e r r o r , had no substantial infl ue nc e o n the c ase . A c e ntr al issue in this c ase w as the timing o f the fe tal bl e e d ; the De fe nd ants ar guing that the bl e e d happe ne d at ho me and the Rie se s ar guing that the bl e e d o c c ur r e d at the Ho spital . As no te d in this Co ur t’s pr e v io us o pinio n, Dr . Go l d smith use d his c al c ul atio ns as o ne o f the base s fo r his o pinio n w hic h, amo ng many o the r things, c o nsid e r e d Laur e n’s d e c r e ase d he ar t r ate , kid ne y func tio n te st r e sul ts, and patho l o gy find ings. Oliphant, 460 S.W.3d at 894. Ad d itio nal l y, six o the r physic ians te stifie d to the ir o pinio ns that the fe tal bl e e d be gan at ho me . Id. at 894-96. Fur the r mo r e , the me d ic al r e c o r d s ind ic ate d that the r e w as no t a signific ant amo unt o f bl o o d w hil e Bil l ie Jo Rie s w as in the Ho spital , o the r than d ur ing he r C-se c tio n. In sum, the r e w as suffic ie nt, ind e e d substantial , e v id e nc e o utsid e o f Dr . Go l d smith ’s o pinio ns to suppo r t the jur y’s v e r d ic t in fav o r o f the De fe nd ants. Giv e n al l the e v id e nc e r e gar d ing the timing o f the fe tal bl e e d , w e c anno t find l imiting Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny to NRBCs, had a “substantial infl ue nc e ” o n the o utc o me o f the tr ial . Winstead, 283 S.W.3d at 689. “The tr ial jud ge has w id e d isc r e tio n to ad mit o r e xc l ud e e v id e nc e inc l ud ing that o f e xpe r t w itne sse s.” Baptist Healthcare, 177 S.W.3d at 680. He r e the tr ial c o ur t und e r sto o d that the Rie se s had “c o me up sho r t” in the fac e o f Dr . Str o ng’s te stimo ny o n NRBCs, so it al l o w e d an e l e v e nth-and -a-hal f ho ur w itne ss, al l w hil e r e c o gnizing that al l o w ing Dr . Phe l an to te stify at al l w as an 20 “e xtr ao r d inar y d e c isio n” that fe l l “v e r y he av il y” o n the De fe nd ants.11 The tr ial c o ur t w as in the be st po sitio n to make the d e te r minatio n, and the tr ial c o ur t e xe r c ise d its d isc r e tio n in an appr o pr iate manne r . Ev e n if this Co ur t c o ul d c o nc l ud e that the tr ial c o ur t e r r e d in l imiting Dr . Phe l an’s te stimo ny, the e r r o r w o ul d be har ml e ss in l ight o f the c umul ativ e natur e o f e xte nsiv e tr ial te stimo ny r e gar d ing the timing o f the fe tal bl e e d . CONCLUSION Fo r the fo r e go ing r e aso ns, w e r e v e r se the Co ur t o f Appe al s and r e instate the tr ial c o ur t’s jud gme nt. Minto n, C.J.; Ke l l e r , Lambe r t, VanMe te r , and Wr ight, JJ., sitting. Al l c o nc ur . COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: Ge r al d R. To ne r Kathe r ine K. Ve se l y Whitne y Ro th Kr ame r O’BRYAN, BROWN 85 TONER, PLLC COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: Ann B. Ol d fathe r Ro be r t Se an De skins OLDFATHER LAW FIRM 11 Dr . Phe l an w as d isc l o se d fiv e d ays be fo r e tr ial (August 26, 2010) and his d e po sitio n w as take n mid -tr ial , o n Se pte mbe r 12, the d ay be fo r e his tr ial te stimo ny. 21 COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE, KENTUCKY DEFENSE COUNSEL, INC.: Dav id V. Kr ame r Mic hae l Enzw e il e r DRESSMAN BENZINGER LAVELLE PSC 22