Opinion ID: 781098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dr. Binnington's Testimony

Text: 10 Sosna next urges that the District Court improperly admitted hearsay testimony when it allowed Binnington to testify on re-direct that the plaintiff's transmigration or translocation theory is not held in high regard anymore by researchers in the field of surgical sepsis. Tr. Vol. V at 177. We disagree. 11 First, even if it were the case that Binnington had testified on direct examination that the transmigration theory is not held in high regard anymore by researchers in the field of surgical sepsis, Sosna would not be correct that inadmissible hearsay had been allowed into the record. Rule 703 permits an expert to rely on otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence in forming his opinion if the facts and data upon which he relies are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in his field. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gwinner Oil, Inc., 125 F.3d 1176, 1182 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 703). Thus, when Binnington testified in his capacity as a surgeon, Rule 703 clearly permitted him to rely on studies or other data produced by researchers in the field of surgical sepsis because this is the type of material reasonably relied upon by experts in [this] field. This, however, is not what happened. Appellant's brief omits reference to the fact that the testimony in question was not elicited during Binnington's direct examination. Rather, pursuant to Rule 705, Sosna questioned Binnington three times during Binnington's cross-examination regarding his deposition testimony about the transmigration theory. In response to these questions, Binnington testified that, although in 1997 (the time of his deposition) he thought that transmigration was one theory for how bacteria might have escaped from Sosna's small bowel, the present state (in 2002) of medical research did not support that theory. Tr. Vol. V at 141-43, 155-57, 164-65. This is substantially the same testimony that the plaintiff subsequently objected to during the defense's re-direct. Plaintiff's having elicited this testimony pursuant to Rule 705, which permits inquiry into the underlying facts or data upon which an expert's opinion is based, the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled plaintiff's objection to further inquiry into the subject on Binnington's re-direct.