Opinion ID: 2514015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying the Fletchers' Motion to Relax Expert Disclosure Requirements.

Text: Because we are remanding for trial, we must address the Fletchers' argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to relax the expert disclosure rules with regard to Dr. Sayer. We review a trial court's discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. [56] We will find an abuse of discretion when we are left with a definite and firm conviction after reviewing the whole record that the trial court erred in its [discovery] ruling. [57] The Fletcherswho had identified Dr. Sayer as an expert on damages, the standard of care given to Fletcher, and the privileging procedures at South Peninsula asked the trial court to relax the requirements in Civil Rule 26(a)(2)(B) that experts must produce an expert report and a curriculum vitae. Rule 26, however, does not apply here, as it speaks only of witnesses who are retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony[.] [58] The Fletchers did not retain or specially employ Dr. Sayer to be an expert witness. [59] Rather, he was Fletcher's treating physician, a testimonial role that we have recognized to be unique. In Miller v. Phillips, we noted that [w]hen physicians are called to testify about matters pertaining to the treatment of their patients, the distinction between an expert witness and a fact witness inevitably becomes blurred. [60] As Dr. Sayer was not a retained expert witness, the requirements of Rule 26 did not apply. The purpose behind Rule 26, however, is still important; a defendant has a right to discover what expert testimony a treating physician will provide. Despite Rule 26's literal inapplicability, the trial court had the discretion to effectuate the Rule's basic purpose. For instance, the court could have required the Fletchers to subpoena and depose Dr. Sayer as to the questions they would ask him on the stand. By denying the Fletchers' motion and applying the Rule 26 requirements, the trial court essentially prevented Fletcher's expert treating physician from testifying. This is too harsh a result, given the other options available to the court. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the Fletchers' motion to relax the expert disclosure requirements with respect to Dr. Sayer. [61]