Source: https://www.experts.com/Articles/Do-Expert-Witness-Reports-Testimony-Comply-2015-Amendments-CRCP-by-Greg-Gerganoff
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:24:49+00:00

Document:
If you are a retained expert witness or an attorney using an expert what are the rules for expert witnesses? Of what need the expert reports consist? What happens when expert reports do not comply with the rules? What sanctions can enter against the non-complying party?
Retained expert reports in Colorado are governed by C.R.C.P. 26 (a) (2) (B) (I). The rule spells out the elements expert testimony need contain. It fixes the objective of expert testimony that is useful and helpful to deciders of fact in explaining and providing key understanding of critical factual elements. Another and equally important role is making available to opposing parties the conclusions and supporting documentation the expert relies upon in the report/testimony. The opposing party can use the sufficiently detailed report for cross-examination.
The case involved a lawsuit brought by Catholic Health against Earl Swensson Associates, Inc. (ESA) for an alleged breach of contract and professional negligence by failing to design a hospital building so it could be separately licensed and certified as an Ambulatory Surgery Center.6 In support of its damages against ESA Catholic Health endorsed Bruce LePage and two other experts. Catholic Health described Mr. LePage an expert with extensive experience in all aspects of cost modeling, systems studies, constructability, cost studies, subcontractor solicitation, detailed planning, client relations, and communications in hospital and other large construction projects.7 ESA filed a motion to strike Mr. LePage's report and testimony for multiple failures to comply with C.R.C.P. 26 (a) (2) (B) (I).
ESA argued in its motion to strike Mr. LePage's testimony hearing that a failure to disclose materials considered upon forming opinions was a basis for excluding the expert's testimony.15 ESA's position was C.R.C.P. 37 (c) (1) mandated the exclusion of Mr. LePage's testimony due to his failure to comply with C.R.C.P. 26 (a) (2) (B) (I).16 The trial court interpreted the 2015 amendments to C.R.C.P. 26 and 37 to require excluding Mr. LePage's testimony.17 (The trial court also rejected Catholic Health's motion to continue the trial date which was scheduled 35 days from the motion to strike the hearing date.) Catholic Health sought relief from the Colorado Supreme Court on the exclusion of its expert's testimony by the trial court.
Legal counsel would benefit by taking some time to educate the expert as to the requirements and to make sure that the expert's reports comply with C.R.C.P. 26 (a) (2) (B) (I).29 Reduce the number of challenges already in existence with litigation by keeping expert testimony compliant.
1C.R.CP. 26 (2) (B) (I), (a) through (h).
2C.R.CP. 26 (2) (B) (I).
6Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado v. Earl Swensson Associates, Inc.,2017 CO 94, ¶ 2.
7Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado, 2017 CO 94, ¶ 3.
9Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Bruce LePage, District Court, Broomfield County, State of Colorado, Case NO 2016CV30055, Plaintiff's First Supplemental Expert Disclosures, paragraph 2.
10Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Bruce LePage, District Court, Broomfield County, State of Colorado, Case NO 2016CV30055, Plaintiff's First Supplemental Expert Disclosures, paragraph 2, 3, 4,5.
11Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Bruce LePage, District Court, Broomfield County, State of Colorado, Case NO 2016CV30055, Plaintiff's First Supplemental Expert Disclosures, paragraphs 6-9.
12Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Bruce LePage, District Court, Broomfield County, State of Colorado, Case NO 2016CV30055, Plaintiff's First Supplemental Expert Disclosures, Argument, paragraph 15.
13Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Bruce LePage, District Court, Broomfield County, State of Colorado, Case No. 2016CV30055, Argument, paragraph 19, citing Gall v. Jamison, 44 P.3d 233, 240 (Colo. 2002).
14Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado d/b/a Centura Health-St. Anthony North Hospital v. Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Petition for A Rule To Show Cause By Catholic Health Initiative Colorado, Colorado Supreme Court, Case No. 2017SA62, H. Argument, 2. Applying the proper legal standards, Mr. LePage's testimony should not have been excluded, pages 21-29.
15Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Designation of Bruce LePage, District Court, Broomfield County, State of Colorado, Case No. 2016CV30055, Argument, paragraph 19, citing Clements v. Davies, 217 P3d 912, 916 (Colo. App. 2009).
17Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado d/b/a Centura Health-St. Anthony North Hospital v. Earl Swensson Associates, Inc., Petition For A Rule To Show Cause By Catholic Health Initiative Colorado, Colorado Supreme Court, Case No. 2017SA62, H. Argument, 2. Applying the proper legal standards, Mr. LePage's testimony should not have been excluded, page 15.
18Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado, ¶ 13,16.
22Trattler v. Citron, 182 P.3d 674, 680 (Colo. 2008).
23Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado, ¶ 11.
24Trattler, 182 P.3d at 681.
27Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado, ¶ 11.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.