Opinion ID: 1793475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: excluded expert testimony

Text: Brittany argues on appeal that Easterling's proffered testimony regarding events during labor and delivery was relevant evidence and should have been admitted. Magid maintains on appeal that the evidence was excluded, not as irrelevant, but as a sanction pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. of Discovery 37 (rev.1997). Magid argues that Brittany failed to amend her interrogatories to inform Magid of Easterling's opinions regarding labor and delivery and that this failure was a violation of Neb. Ct. R. of Discovery 26(e)(1)(B) (rev.1996), warranting exclusion of Easterling's testimony on those issues. Magid further argues, in the alternative, that the proffered testimony was irrelevant and that no prejudice resulted from the exclusion because the substance of Easterling's testimony was presented by other witnesses. We determine that, even assuming Easterling's proffered testimony to be relevant and otherwise admissible, the exclusion of that testimony does not warrant reversal because the testimony was cumulative. To constitute reversible error in a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence must unfairly prejudice a substantial right of a litigant complaining about evidence admitted or excluded. Radecki v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 255 Neb. 224, 583 N.W.2d 320 (1998); Walkenhorst v. State, 253 Neb. 986, 573 N.W.2d 474 (1998). An improper exclusion of evidence is ordinarily not prejudicial where substantially similar evidence is admitted without objection. See In re Interest of Tabatha R., 255 Neb. 818, 587 N.W.2d 109 (1998). See, also, e.g., Talle v. Nebraska Dept. of Soc. Servs., 253 Neb. 823, 572 N.W.2d 790 (1998). An appellate court will not predicate prejudicial error on the exclusion of redundant testimony of a particular witness. See Thacker v. State, 193 Neb. 817, 229 N.W.2d 197 (1975). In the instant case, Brittany made an offer of proof near the end of Magid's case in chief, stating that Easterling would have testified that the defendant's breach of the standard of care of obstetricians in 1988 continued throughout the labor and delivery of Sandra Leavitt; specifically in his failure to recognize evidence of late decelerations and severe fetal distress when the fetus was first hooked up to the fetal monitors; His failure to then arrange for and deliver the child immediately, thus avoiding the prolonged and extended three-and-a-half hour labor and delivery of an already compromised and stressed fetus; That as a result of that breach of the standard of care in labor and delivery, an already compromised fetus was exposed to further injury and, in fact, the trauma of the vaginal delivery contributed to the brain injury which this baby suffered.... The record reveals, however, that during Brittany's rebuttal case, another expert, Dr. Kenneth Petri, gave testimony nearly identical to that contained in Brittany's offer of proof. Petri testified in the following colloquy: [BRITTANY'S COUNSEL]. All right. Do you have an opinion, Doctor, based upon your review of those fetal monitoring strips with respect to what the standard of care required of Dr. Magid in that labor and delivery room? [PETRI]. Standard of care required a lot more reaction on his part, at least an awareness that there was significant fetal distress going on from the very beginning. And then, you know Q. And if you're aware of that fetal distress, what is the duty of the physician? A. If the distress is considered to be significant, and I think in the beginning of the strip where there is a six-minute bradycardic episode, this is in the very first part of the monitor strip, that preparations for Cesarean section needs to be made at that point. Especially considering that the patient is now four to five centimeters dilated and you might assume another three or four hours, at least, of labor on the average. Q. So from that very point where we have that six-minute period of fetal distress, it's your opinion that preparations should have been made for a C-section? A. Yes. .... Q.... ... [C]an you tell us your opinion with respect to whether the events of labor and delivery contributed to Brittany's brain injury? A. Yes, I think they were the likely cause. .... Q. Let me back up and ask you this question, Doctor, the same one you were asked in your deposition: Did this labor and delivery do that baby any good? A. No, it was obviously at least somewhat harmful. In addition to the testimony of Petri, two other expert witnesses, Dr. Fred Kader and Dr. Mary Kathleen Bowen, each testified during direct examination that some of Brittany's brain injury was due to trauma inflicted during labor and delivery. Finally, the district court instructed the jury that it could find for Brittany if she proved her case with regard to any of the particular allegations of negligence contained in her petition. Instruction No. 2 included in part the following allegations: 5. Failure to provide appropriate management of a growth restricted fetus by initiating an earlier delivery of the fetus from its hostile environment in order to maximize the health of the fetus; and 6. Failure to initiate an earlier and more controlled labor and delivery on January 17, 1988, which failure resulted in the exposure of a then compromised fetus to the additional stresses of a complicated labor and delivery. It is evident from the portions of the record excerpted above that Easterling's proposed testimony ultimately proved to be cumulative. Brittany's other expert witnesses offered essentially the same evidence as contained in Brittany's offer of proof with respect to Easterling. The jury was specifically instructed to consider Magid's alleged negligence during labor and delivery, and expert testimonial evidence was adduced on that point for Brittany to argue to the jury and for the jury to consider. We have also considered, and find significant, the substance of Easterling's opinion regarding negligence during labor and delivery when he was initially questioned on voir dire prior to Magid's objection. When compared with Petri's more definitive testimony regarding labor and delivery, it is difficult to conclude that Brittany was prejudiced by the exclusion of Easterling's less substantial and definitive opinion on the same subject. For these reasons, we determine that Brittany was not prejudiced by the exclusion of Easterling's proffered testimony on the same point. Therefore, we need not determine if the trial court erred in excluding some of Easterling's testimony, because such error, if any, was not prejudicial to Brittany and would not warrant reversal of the judgment of the district court. Brittany's first assignment of error is without merit.