Opinion ID: 1287416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: davis' expert testimony

Text: [32] Sturzenegger raises two arguments with respect to Davis' expert testimony. First, Sturzenegger argues that Davis' opinion was improperly based upon a personality test conducted by Thurman. In making that argument, Sturzenegger has invoked Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [56] and Schafersman v. Agland Coop. [57] Under Daubert and Schafersman, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert's opinion. [58] This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid and whether that reasoning or methodology can be applied to the facts in issue. [59] In addition, the trial court must determine if the witness has applied the methodology in a reliable manner. [60] [33] But it is only when a party opposing an expert's testimony has sufficiently called into question the testimony's factual basis, data, principles, or methods, or their application, that the trial judge must determine whether the testimony has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline. [61] Here, the only purported methodology that Sturzenegger challenges is Davis' use of results from a test that was administered by another medical professional. Such reliance on another's work is clearly permissible under the rules of evidence, so long as the facts or data relied upon are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. [62] And more to the point, Sturzenegger's argument does not identify any methodological defect underlying Davis' opinion. The court did not err in permitting Davis to provide expert testimony based, in part, on tests administered by Thurman. Sturzenegger also argues that Davis' diagnosis of malingering was an improper opinion on Sturzenegger's credibility. We have held that ``[n]o witness, expert or otherwise, should be permitted to give an opinion that another mentally and physically competent witness is telling the truth.'' [63] But testimony that contradicts that of another witness is not improper. Sturzenegger testified to the psychological symptoms that he claimed were caused by Moore and adduced expert testimony opining he suffered from, among other things, posttraumatic stress disorder. It was not improper for Davis to opine, based on adequate foundation, that Sturzenegger was not suffering from those conditions or to offer a different diagnosis to explain Sturzenegger's evidence. If this case involved a physical injury, there would be no question that expert testimony refuting the plaintiff's claim of a physical disability would be admissible. The fact that the claimed injury in this case is mental does not change the applicable principles of law. Having reviewed Davis' testimony, we find no error in admitting his opinion regarding Sturzenegger's mental condition. We find no merit to Sturzenegger's assignments of error.