Opinion ID: 2263396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impeachment with a Learned Treatise.

Text: The Caulfields argue that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allow the impeachment of Dr. Stark with a learned treatise. The trial judge did not permit this line of questioning because Dr. Stark was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness. The Caulfields were not prejudiced by their inability to impeach Dr. Stark with a learned medical treatise since both parties engaged independent expert witnesses to testify regarding the appropriate standard of care. The Caulfields' expert witness. Dr. Bernard Heckman, concluded that Dr. Stark had not complied with the applicable standard of care in his treatment of Ms. Caulfield because, among other reasons, he had not performed a digital rectal exam of Ms. Caulfield on May 17, 1995. Dr. Heckman's opinion was contradicted by Dr. Stark's and the Medical Group's expert, Dr. Stuart Danovitch, who stated that the standard of care dictated that Dr. Stark perform the digital rectal exam at the time of the colonoscopy and not during the office visit. The Caulfields did not attempt to impeach Dr. Danovitch with Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine or any other learned medical treatise. Based on the record, it would be speculative to conclude what Dr. Stark's testimony would have revealed if he had been impeached with the Caulfields' unspecified reference to Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine. See District of Columbia v. Kora & Williams Corp., 743 A.2d 682, 690 (D.C.1999) (stating that [t]o properly preserve excluded testimony for review on appeal, trial counsel must normally make an offer of proof) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing the impeachment of this witness. Affirmed.