Opinion ID: 2433995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr. Smith's testimony

Text: Expert witnesses for the appellees testified that Melinda should have been given magnesium sulfate rather than valium to control her seizures. Expert witnesses for the appellants testified that valium was entirely appropriate. One of the latter witnesses was Dr. Lander Smith who was training at the University of Arkansas Medical Center in 1978. Dr. Smith testified he was familiar with transfers to the University of Arkansas Medical Center. He said that when a transfer occurs the referring physician speaks with a specialist there and he (presumably the specialist) will state what is best for the patient and will give suggestions for the patient during the transfer. Dr. Kelley's counsel then asked Dr. Smith this question: Question: Dr. Smith, let me ask you: From your knowledge of this case and research of things you have done, do you know what the recommendations were, even of the neurologist at the medical center, for transfer of seizuring patients in 1978, particularly as to what medication to put them on for the time of transfer. The court sustained a hearsay objection. However, in response to the next few questions Dr. Smith was allowed to testify that in his opinion valium was an appropriate drug to be used in the transfer of a patient with Melinda's symptoms and that that had been his feeling in 1978. In post-trial discussion of his ruling on the hearsay objection, the judge noted the question lent itself to being interpreted as asking what Dr. Kelley was told by a specialist in this case. We agree that was a possible interpretation of the question. That makes irrelevant Dr. Kelley's argument that an expert may rely on hearsay in forming his opinion. See A.R.E. Rule 703. Dr. Kelley got the benefit of Dr. Smith's opinion testimony on whether valium was appropriate, but he was not necessarily entitled to have Dr. Smith testify in a way that would suggest what Dr. Kelley was told in this case. The judge concluded the danger that the jury might reach such a conclusion made the prejudice of the proposed testimony outweigh its probative value. We cannot say he abused the discretion granted him by A.R.E. Rule 403.