Opinion ID: 1058370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Exclusion of Dr. Hays ' Deposition

Text: We next address whether the Court of Appeals properly concluded that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition testimony of Dr. Michael W. Hays, a defense expert witness. The plaintiff argues that the trial court properly excluded Dr. Hays' testimony after finding that it was speculative on the issue of what caused the decedent's death. The defendants maintain that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court's ruling because Dr. Hays' testimony presented possible alternative causes of the decedent's death. The record shows that the plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the deposition testimony of three expert witnesses for the defense who discussed the carotid artery occlusion as the cause of the decedent's death in this case: Dr. Michael Hays, Dr. Ballard Wright, and Dr. Eichorn. In granting the motion as to Dr. Hays, the trial court found that Dr. Hays made numerous references to occlusion being a possible cause of death in this case and concluded that the overwhelming weight of his testimony indicate[d] that he believes this theory is only a possibility. [9] The trial court emphasized that when Dr. Hays was asked whether a loss of blood flow was the cause of death to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, he replied: [T]here seems to be information that would support that that could possibly impinge on the carotid artery. He had a block on the opposite side which could decrease blood flow through that artery and then he could be positioned in a way that could slightly decrease flow through the vertebral arteries. The trial court also emphasized Dr. Hays' following statements: Q: In your opinion, is [occlusion] a probable explanation as to the outcome? A: Probable versus  Q: Yes. A: It is possible. ... Q: The compromise on the flow on the left, you say, is a possibility? A: It's possible, yes. Q: The compromise of flow on the right you characterize as a possibility? A: Possibility. Q: Compromising the vertebrals you characterized as a possibility? A: That's correct. Q: Now, do you equate three possibilities to make it probable that that's in fact what did happen or are you just saying that they're all three possibilities and it is my best explanation I can offer? A: I think the latter. Determining the admissibility, qualifications, relevance, and competency of expert testimony is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 263. Here, the trial court fully considered Dr. Hays' deposition, found that Dr. Hays' theory as to the cause of death was speculative, and concluded that the testimony was inadmissible. The trial court supported its conclusion with detailed written findings. Although the dissent now relies on portions of Dr. Hays' deposition for its view that the testimony was admissible, the totality of Dr. Hays' testimony supports the trial court's finding that his theory was based on mere possibility. Indeed, our function is only to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony and not to substitute our view for that of the trial court. McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 263-64. In addition, the record does not support the Court of Appeals' holding, and the dissent's view, that the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Hays' testimony affected the result of the trial. The trial court contrasted the testimony of Dr. Hays with Drs. Wright and Eichorn, conducted an additional hearing, and ruled that the testimony of Drs. Wright and Eichorn was admissible. Dr. Eichorn testified in great detail about the carotid artery occlusion theory on behalf of the defendants at trial. The defendants' alternative theory as to the cause of death was fully presented and argued to the jury. Accordingly, given the trial court's full consideration, detailed findings, and admission of other expert testimony on this issue, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Hays' deposition did not affect the result of the trial. In reaching our conclusion, we necessarily reject the view that Dr. Hays' testimony was admissible as evidence of a possible alternative to the plaintiff's theory under Sakler v. Anesthesiology Assocs., P.S.C., 50 S.W.3d 210 (Ky.Ct.App.2001). In Sakler , the court stated in part: We conclude that defendants in medical malpractice actions may introduce expert testimony to rebut a plaintiff's expert witness testimony couched in terms of reasonable medical probability, even though the defendant's expert witness's testimony is couched only in terms of possibility. Id. at 213. The court reasoned that requiring defendants to establish other causes within a reasonable degree of medical probability would unduly tie a defendant's hands in rebutting a plaintiff's case. Id. at 214; see also Wilder v. Eberhart, 977 F.2d 673, 676 (1st Cir.1992). In our view, the Sakler rule is not needed to avoid shifting the burden of proof to the defendants and would instead, if applied literally, allow defendants to use expert testimony as to possible theories or causes without satisfying the safeguards in Rules 702 and 703 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. These evidentiary rules require a trial court to determine 1) whether expert testimony will substantially assist the trier of fact in determining a fact in issue, and 2) whether the facts and data underlying the testimony indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Tenn. R. Evid. 702, 703. Indeed, expert testimony that a trial court determines is speculative would not substantially assist the trier of fact. Nothing in the evidentiary rules or elsewhere exempts defendants from these fundamental evidentiary inquiries. In addition, determining the admissibility, qualifications, relevance, and competency of expert testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court. See McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 263. Adopting the Sakler rule applied by the Court of Appeals and supported by the dissent would effectively eliminate the trial court's discretion concerning a defendant's use of expert testimony. We believe that the rule from Sakler is not appropriate in this case, in which the trial court specifically found the expert testimony to be speculative, and we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Hays' deposition.