Opinion ID: 848667
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Qualifications of the Expert Witness

Text: Respondent argues that the examiner's expert, Harvey Ager, M.D., was not qualified to testify. Dr. Ager is a psychiatrist who testified about the conduct typical of an alcoholic. MRE 702 provides the rule for expert testimony: If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Respondent argues that Dr. Ager's failure to publish, present, or conduct peer review on the topic of alcoholism in the recent past disqualifies him from testifying as an expert. He is mistaken. The master noted that, although Dr. Ager had not recently published or made presentations on the topic, there was evidence that he is a graduate of Wayne State University. That he is a board certified psychiatrist. That he is a former codirector of the alcoholism unit at Detroit Memorial Hospital.... [T]hat he has treated hundreds of individuals with respect to alcoholism.... I do find that his experience in this area in addition to his general medical training is such that he is qualified as an expert to testify and render an opinion regarding conduct consistent with alcoholism. The master ruled that Dr. Ager could testify as long as his testimony conformed with the requirements of MRE 702. He noted that there has been nothing here to suggest that this sort of testimony would not be based upon reliable principals [sic] and methods. Dr. Ager's testimony conformed with the requirements of MRE 702. On the basis of his experience, he testified about what conduct is consistent with that of an alcoholic. He also testified about his personal interaction with respondent in a ninety-minute interview. Contrary to respondent's assertions, Dr. Ager did not testify outside the bounds of his knowledge. He did not state that respondent's alcoholism caused his docket delays. He testified simply about the behavior one could expect from an alcoholic. Dr. Ager did not view respondent's work product and did not comment on the quality of respondent's work. Nor was Dr. Ager introduced to testify regarding respondent's work product. The fact that Dr. Ager was unfamiliar with the work of respondent and the extent of Dr. Ager's experience with alcoholics go to the weight to be given his testimony. They are not determinative of whether his testimony conformed with the requirements of MRE 702. We find that Dr. Ager qualified as an expert witness. His testimony complied with MRE 702 and, therefore, was admissible.