Opinion ID: 1784286
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of Right to Object to Evidence

Text: The first issue we discuss is whether, during the reading of deposition testimony of the plaintiff's treating physician, Darnell could object to certain questions asked, although he had not objected to those questions while the deposition was being taken. The plaintiff, McKelvy, had taken a deposition of his treating physician, Dr. Willard Irwin, and wanted to introduce it into evidence at the trial. At the time the deposition was taken, McKelvy and Darnell had entered into a stipulation that provided, in part, that it shall not be necessary for any objections to be made by counsel to any questions, except as to form of leading questions, and that counsel for the parties may make objections and assign grounds at the time of trial, or at the time said deposition is offered in evidence, or prior thereto. (Emphasis added.) [1] During the trial, McKelvy offered the deposition testimony of Dr. Irwin; Darnell's counsel objected to the following questions, on the basic ground that Dr. Irwin did not base his opinion testimony upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty: Again, do you think on this occasion that this condition was still being aggravated or incited still [sic] due to the wreck? Do you have an opinion that [sic] would have caused those [muscle spasms], if anything? Can you in any way relate this condition, or the condition you observed at that time, to the automobile accident that occurred back in December or can you in any way relate these physical conditions to that? The trial court sustained Darnell's objections to these questions, thereby excluding the doctor's answers, which would have been beneficial to McKelvy's case. McKelvy claims that the trial court erred in doing so, and argues that any objection Darnell had to the questions should have been made when the deposition was taken and that his failure to object at that time constituted a waiver of any objection. Darnell argues, on the other hand, that the questions go far beyond mere form or technicality and go to the very heart of [the] plaintiff's casecausation, and that he had not waived his right to object to the questions. We agree with McKelvy that Darnell waived his right to object to the three questions by failing to object at the time the deposition was taken. Essentially, Darnell's objection was that McKelvy had not laid a proper predicate, a matter that could have been corrected if objection had been made at the deposition hearing. We agree with McKelvy that the questions were proper and that the trial judge should not have excluded the testimony, as we shall point out below.