Opinion ID: 1206745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was there prejudicial error in the trial court rulings admitting certain evidence and excluding certain other evidence?

Text: Plaintiffs object to the admission of xerox copies of some of plaintiff's hospital records as not the best evidence. Plaintiff had previously at pretrial waived identification of medical records. The best evidence objection now interposed was not suggested when the exhibits were offered, and may not at this stage be successfully invoked. [12] Plaintiff objects to admission of the curriculum vitae, or resume of qualifications of two expert witnesses for the defendants. These may have been admitted in error as either cumulative or contrary to 12 O.S. § 2803(5), [13] but no prejudice is shown to have resulted. A. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected... . [14] Error is claimed in the court's refusal to admit certain summaries of medical records, prepared in poster form. Summaries of the evidence are treated in the code at 12 O.S. 1981 § 3006: The contents of voluminous writings, recordings or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The judge may order that they be produced in court. (Emphasis supplied.) Whether to admit such summaries pursuant to the may be language of the statute is discretionary with the trial court. No abuse is shown. The same principle controls plaintiffs' complaint for failure to admit photos offered to show the hallway looking from the nursing station. The final assignment of evidentiary error arises out of cross-examination of Dr. R. Plaintiffs' counsel vigorously interrogated the witness regarding a chapter from an authoritative text entitled Reconstructive Plastic Surgery, Ch. 50 in particular. At issue was whether certain statements in the chapter pertained to only newborn infants as the doctor maintained on the stand, or to other patients such as Sid. Plaintiffs offered the treatise as an exhibit and defendants' objection to it was sustained. Insofar as the treatise was offered as reliable authority ... called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination, the objection was correctly sustained. Such statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits. [15] The more serious problem is this: Chapter 50 of the book was actually written by the witness, and the offer was therefore that of a prior inconsistent statement. The court thus erred in sustaining the objection. We find, however, nothing so inherently prejudicial in this error as to require reversal. The exhibit was offered to impeach the witness' credibility, and the witness had already been cross-examined thoroughly with questions and quotes from the treatise. Thus the jury had already been exposed to the excluded information. Further, Dr. R's testimony as to the ultimate issue in the case, causation, was that of but one of four non-party physicians, each of whom testified that the injuries pre-dated the surgery. We have held that the test of errors not inherently prejudicial is the likelihood that the verdict would have been different had they not occurred. [16] Upon a careful review of the evidence we cannot conclude that this error requires reversal of this complicated trial of ten days duration.