Opinion ID: 2514019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: dr. radetsky's testimony

Text: Irvin argues that the district court erred in allowing Dr. Michael Radetsky, a pediatric intensivist, to testify that Smith did not violate the standard of care because Radetsky's testimony was outside the scope of Smith's expert designation and because Radetsky had refused to answer specific questions regarding the existence of such opinion during his discovery deposition. The admission of expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Its decision will not be overturned absent an abuse of such discretion. Olathe Mfg., Inc. v. Browning Mfg., 259 Kan. 735, 762, 915 P.2d 86 (1996). One who asserts an abuse of discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse. State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 93, 977 P.2d 931 (1999). Irvin argues that Smith was required to disclose Radetsky's opinions and the summary of the grounds for his opinions pursuant to K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-226(b)(6)(B). Because Smith failed to provide a report in which Radetsky offered his opinions regarding the standard of care of Smith, Irvin argues that his testimony should not have been admitted. Radetsky was initially retained as an expert by Wesley to testify regarding the standard of nursing care provided to Irvin. After Wesley was dismissed, Smith asked Radetsky to testify in the second Sedgwick County trial. At the time of Radetsky's discovery deposition, his counsel stated: He's not going to express any opinions at trial concerning the physicians in this case. When counsel for Irvin attempted to elicit Radetsky's opinions concerning the care of Smith, Radetsky's counsel reiterated: He will not render any testimony whatsoever concerning the standard of care issues concerning any of the physicians involved with this case, either Wesley or anywhere else, period. Smith's counsel also joined with Radetsky's counsel, stating: Dr. Radetsky did not render a report as to Dr. Smith .... But as I understand what Mr. North said ... the witness is not being offered on those subject matters beyond the scope of the report. Irvin's counsel persisted and asked: Okay, Dr. Radetsky, what opinions do you have concerning the care rendered by Dr. Smith? Radetsky's counsel again objected, stating: No. Objection. It's beyond the scope of his expert report. He's not going to be offered as a witness at trial so he's not going to answer the question. Radetsky did not answer the question during the deposition. During the course of the trial, Smith offered the testimony of two standard of care witnesses, Dr. George Reynolds and Radetsky. Reynolds had been designated and deposed as a standard of care expert for Smith. As previously noted, Radetsky initially had been designated and deposed as an expert witness whose opinions related to the nursing care provided by Wesley. Early in the trial, Smith informed Irvin of his witness schedule, which included Radetsky. Irvin objected to the use of Radetsky as a standard of care witness several times. Smith informed the court that Radetsky would essentially provide the same testimony that he provided in the March 1999 trial, but that Radetsky would not be asked to comment on Smith's standard of care. At trial, Radetsky testified via videotaped deposition. Radetsky testified that records and testimony showed nothing to indicate a shunt malfunction prior to 8:45 a.m. on November 15, 1995. Both Irvin and Smith filed designations of Radetsky's testimony. Irvin objected to the introduction of Radetsky's videotaped trial deposition. The district judge overruled the objection, stating: This witness testified at the last trial, he's testified again at videotaped deposition on areas that I'm pretty confident are basically the areas that you covered the first time you had this trial. More importantly, he was listed as a witness by Doctor Smith in the pretrial order. I think that his testimony should be allowed in this case. Irvin cannot claim surprise or prejudice by the district court's decision to allow Radetsky to testify in this matter. Contrary to Irvin's assertions, Smith designated Radetsky as an expert in the pretrial order when he set forth and identified any expert witnesses named by other defendants in his witness list. Because Wesley had originally named Radetsky as an expert witness, Smith was able to call him as an expert in the second trial as the district court had previously ruled that witnesses listed by one party could be called by any other party. Radetsky was questioned at length by Irvin during the discovery deposition on matters relating to the standard of care of Irvin; although the questions did not specifically mention or refer to Smith, they, nonetheless, shed light on Radetsky's opinions regarding the care provided to Irvin. A thorough examination of the voluminous record reveals that Radetsky's testimony in the videotaped deposition taken during the second trial roughly mirrors that of the discovery deposition Radetsky gave prior to the first trial and is also similar to the testimony Radetsky provided at the first Sedgwick County trial. Furthermore, Radetsky's testimony at the second trial was consistent with the content of his report made for Wesley. We cannot say the district court abused its discretion in allowing Radetsky to testify regarding Smith's standard of care.