Furthermore, he conceded a vocational expert has competence that I do not have to take physical limitations and translate them into vocational limitations. After hearing this testimony, the circuit court nonetheless allowed Frankenfeld to testify without limitation. Frankenfeld offered the jury a range of figures representing the present value of any reduction in Garland s earning capacity. Frankenfeld also calculated damages based on higher and lower disability ratings. Rossknecht urges us to hold that the circuit court erred in allowing an economist to assign a disability rating for Garland, especially as it was based only on Garland s self-appraisal of his work capacities.
Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert opinions.
We will not reverse a court s evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion. The circuit court found that Rossknecht's foundational objections went to credibility, not admissibility, reasoning that the jury should decide whether the information on which Frankenfeld relied was credible. It is true that challenges to the facts underlying an expert s opinion present issues for a jury. However, when dealing with expert opinion, the court must fulfill a gatekeeping function, ensuring that the opinion meets the prerequisites of relevance and reliability before admission. These factors cannot be applied in all settings.