Opinion ID: 2363060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of Michele Lauria, M.D.

Text: The plaintiffs next assert that Lauria should not have been permitted to testify regarding the causation and timing of the baby's injury because: (1) the defendants did not disclose her as an expert as required by RSA 516:29-b and Superior Court Rule 35(f); and (2) Lauria was not qualified to give such opinions. The defendants again argue that these issues were not preserved for appeal. We agree. Before trial, the plaintiffs filed a broad motion in limine to exclude any opinion testimony from physicians testifying for the defense for whom no expert opinions have been disclosed. The court did not directly rule on the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the issue was not ripe. The record does not reveal that the motion was renewed. Applying the same rule regarding preservation and motions in limine from Klar, discussed above, we hold that the plaintiffs' motion in limine was insufficient to preserve the issue regarding disclosure of Lauria as an expert. The court made no definitive ruling on the motion and Lauria was not even specifically mentioned in the motion. Since the motion in limine was insufficient to preserve this issue, a timely objection at trial was required. Klar, 145 N.H. at 488-89, 767 A.2d 401. At trial, Lauria, who had previously been a party defendant, was called as the plaintiffs' witness. During examination by the plaintiffs' counsel, Lauria was asked the following question: And certainly this baby was not injured when you left to go home, or you . . . wouldn't have gone home, isn't that fair? She responded: Oh, sir, I . . . think that [the] Bandl's ring was there for a very long time in that if you look at what happened to the skin on his head, I think easily [it] could have happened before I left that evening. This testimony concerning the timing of the injury continued for some time without objection. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that Lauria's responses were not prompted by the plaintiffs' counsel and did not respond to the questions asked. However, the plaintiffs' counsel submitted no objection, and did not request a bench conference or voir dire at the time of this testimony. The first objection to Lauria's testimony came during the defendants' cross-examination. An objection made later in the witness's testimony, during cross-examination by the defense, does not preserve this issue on appeal. Cf. State v. LaBranche, 118 N.H. 176, 179, 385 A.2d 108 (1978) (The fact that defense counsel raised the objection and requested a mistrial in each instance after a few additional questions and answers had ensued is of no consequence. (emphasis added)). We also hold that the issue regarding Lauria's qualifications to offer an opinion on causation and timing was not preserved. The record does not reflect that a motion in limine was ever filed on this issue and we reiterate our above discussion regarding the lack of an objection to Lauria's testimony on causation and timing during examination by the plaintiffs' counsel.