Opinion ID: 2626856
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Challenge to Dr. Grant's testimony

Text: ¶ 13 Keefe challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to Dr. Grant's testimony because Dr. Grant did not perform an in-person evaluation of Keefe. Although the hearing officer ordered Keefe to submit to an independent mental evaluation pursuant to ELC 8.3(d)(5), Keefe refused. Under ELC 8.3(d)(6), the hearing officer must conduct the hearing even if the respondent attorney fails to appear for an independent examination, fails to waive health care provider-patient privilege . . ., or fails to appear at the hearing. If the hearing officer is presented with sufficient evidence to determine incapacity, [he or she must] order the respondent transferred to disability inactive status. ELC 8.3(d)(6)(A). ¶ 14 Keefe nonetheless challenges Dr. Grant's testimony on the grounds that Dr. Grant's failure to perform an in-person examination of Keefe undermined his expert opinion. He relies on Dr. Grant's statement that members of his profession usually evaluate individuals in person before forming expert opinions. Under the Rules of Evidence (ER), which serve as guidelines in disability hearings, an expert witness must have a reasonable basis of information about the subject before offering his or her expert opinion. See ER 702, 703. ER 703 provides that [t]he facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. Though the expert need not have personal, firsthand knowledge of the evidence upon which he or she relies, the evidence must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. Id. Under this rule, we have affirmed the admission of expert testimony from a blood splatter expert who reviewed only documentary evidence of photographs and videotape and examined the victim's clothing and chair. State v. Roberts, 142 Wash.2d 471, 522, 14 P.3d 713 (2000); see also Sunbreaker Condo. Ass'n v. Travelers Ins. Co., 79 Wash.App. 368, 374, 901 P.2d 1079 (1995) (allowing testimony about likely windstorm damage where expert did not personally experience the windstorm). ¶ 15 Although an in-person evaluation of Keefe's mental capacity may have strengthened Dr. Grant's testimony, neither the disability hearing rules nor the ERs require such firsthand knowledge. Dr. Grant based his expert opinion on Keefe's written statements because Keefe did not authorize the release of his medical records and did not comply with the hearing officer's order to have an independent mental examination. Dr. Grant indicated that reviewing the statements or writings of a subject [is] one of the standard procedures . . . used in psychiatric evaluations. [1] 1 TR at 99. Through his review of more than 25 exhibits covering three years of documents and transcribed proceedings, Dr. Grant observed statements that reflected Keefe's perception of reality, state of mind, and delusional thinking. Dr. Grant relied on this information to formulate his expert opinion that he probably has paranoid schizophrenia and his delusional thinking impairs his ability to receive or process information, his ability to reason, and his ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. Id. at 120, 122. Dr. Grant's review of the voluminous written documents constitutes a reasonable basis of information upon which he permissibly based his expert opinion. ¶ 16 Keefe also argues that Dr. Grant was not a detached expert rendering an opinion but rather considered the [Association] to be his client so in order to accommodate them he came up with an assessment. Opening Br. of Resp't at 16. Keefe provides no authority, however, for the proposition that an expert must be a detached witness. Moreover, nothing in the record supports Keefe's contention that Dr. Grant was biased. Keefe's attorney, apparently following Keefe's instruction to not participate in the hearing, did not object to Dr. Grant's testimony and did not cross-examine him about any potential biases. We rely on the hearing officer's witness credibility determinations and therefore accept his finding that Dr. Grant's testimony was credible and persuasive.