Opinion ID: 2441971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Haudenschild's testimony

Text: Additionally, appellants argue that Dr. Haudenschild's de bene esse video deposition testimony should have been excluded because (1) it is hearsay and (2) appellee did not disclose Dr. Haudenschild as a witness in a timely manner. Appellants do not explain why Dr. Haudenschild's testimony is hearsay. In fact, they fail to develop this argument any further than listing it in a section heading. Therefore, the argument is not properly before us and we decline to address it. [14] Appellants also claim that appellees failed to disclose Dr. Haudenschild as a witness as required by Rule 26(b)(4). Rule 26(b)(4) requires that a party who intends to rely on expert opinions must provide the opposing party with the substance of the expert's expected testimony before trial .... Rule 26(b)(4) applies only to facts and opinions acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial. The rule does not apply to professionals or practitioners who acquire information and develop opinions as actor[s] or viewer[s] in the course of treating the patient. [15] Appellee argues that Rule 26(b)(4) does not apply to Dr. Haudenschild because he is not an expert witness. Instead, GWUH engaged Dr. Haudenschild as a quality assurance consultant for the purpose of drafting the Final Autopsy Report. [16] Appellants do not present, nor do we find in the record, any evidence that he was consulted in anticipation of litigation. [17] Accordingly, Rule 26(b)(4) does not apply to Dr. Haudenschild's testimony. [18]