Opinion ID: 887751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did the District Court abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of Howard's compression fractures to the spine?

Text: ¶ 33 Prior to trial, St. James filed a motion in limine requesting exclusion of a report by Dr. V. Patrick Hughes interpreting X-rays of Howard's spine as showing some slight compression. St. James argued to the District Court that Dr. Hughes's expert report should be disallowed because Howard disclosed the report eight months after the expert disclosure deadline, thereby precluding St. James from properly researching and preparing a rebuttal. The court granted the defense motion. ¶ 34 In light of this ruling, Howard argues that the court erred when it allowed St. James to elicit trial testimony from Howard concerning previous compression fractures he sustained in 2000 and/or 2001 to show that seizures alone can cause compression fractures. Howard's argument misses the point. The court did not grant the motion in limine due to a lack of relevancy  the court disallowed Dr. Hughes's report because Howard failed to meet the expert witness disclosure deadline. ¶ 35 A district court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, Payne, ¶ 20. Howard has failed to demonstrate the prejudice created by this ruling  particularly since the jury did not reach the issue of damages. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion; therefore, we affirm its ruling. ¶ 36 We affirm on all three issues. We concur: JAMES C. NELSON, PATRICIA COTTER, JIM RICE and BRIAN MORRIS, JJ.