Opinion ID: 1176271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Newton's Expert Testimony

Text: Although Phillips included her preceptor, Dr. Burritt Newton, on her general witness list for trial, she did not name him as a potential expert witness. At trial, the Millers objected to any expert testimony by Dr. Newton. In response to this objection, the trial court ruled that Newton, as Phillips's preceptor, had in effect been Colleen Miller's treating doctor. For this reason, the court deemed Dr. Newton to be a hybrid witness, ruling that, while he would be forbidden from testifying in general terms about the appropriate standard of care, he would be allowed to testify as to his expert observations and his own opinion as to what he observed. The trial court later broadened the scope of its ruling, permitting Dr. Newton to state expert opinions based on his review of hospital records. Several months before trial, while still a defendant in the case, Dr. Newton had filed an affidavit in support of ARH's motion for summary judgment. In this affidavit, Dr. Newton indicated that he had reviewed the history of this labor and delivery and all pertinent medical records, and based upon [his] knowledge and experience with respect to the matters at issue, [he could] find no fault or shortcoming of any nature with the care, facilities, staffing, or other involvement by the Hospital in relation to the labor and delivery in this matter. The trial court allowed Dr. Newton to testify about these issues, but limited him to the four corners of [his] affidavit. The Millers contend that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Newton to testify as an expert. [2] They point to numerous items of expert testimony that, in their view, should have been excluded. We do not find this argument persuasive. When physicians are called to testify about matters pertaining to the treatment of their patients, the distinction between an expert witness and a fact witness inevitably becomes blurred. Courts in other jurisdictions have often recognized that treating physicians need not be listed as expert witnesses on pretrial disclosure lists, even when their proposed testimony involves opinions regarding their patients' injuries, treatment, and prognoses. [3] The Millers nevertheless contend that Dr. Newton was not Colleen Miller's treating physician because he had no personal contact with her prior to or during her son's delivery. This argument lacks merit. While Dr. Newton did not provide prenatal care for Colleen Miller or perform Gage's delivery, he acted as Phillips's supervising physician. In that capacity, he reviewed Colleen Miller's medical chart with Phillips when Miller was approximately eight months pregnant, in order to determine if it would be appropriate to continue midwife care or if Miller needed an obstetrician's care. Pursuant to ARH policy, Dr. Newton was responsible for Colleen Miller's admission to the hospital at the time of Gage's birth and was listed as her admitting physician. As Colleen Miller's admitting physician, Dr. Newton was automatically the one responsible for seeing that the medical record [was] complete. He was available for consultation with Phillips  and actually did consult with her  during Colleen's labor and Gage's birth. He was also expected to perform the delivery itself if Phillips encountered difficulties requiring a physician's intervention. Dr. Newton co-signed all of Phillips's notes in the record and reviewed her medical chart approximately a month after Gage's delivery. Thus, Dr. Newton was involved intimately in the events surrounding Gage's birth. The nature of his involvement required him to bring his medical expertise to bear on the facts within his knowledge. Furthermore, both in his supervisory capacity over Phillips and in his own capacity as a defendant in the Millers' lawsuit, Dr. Newton remained engaged in the post-birth process of evaluating the medical treatment received by Colleen and Gage. Given these circumstances, it makes little difference whether Dr. Newton functioned as a treating physician or a preceptor. The Millers complain that Phillips's failure to list Dr. Newton as an expert caused them unfair surprise. Although we recognize that pretrial disclosure of expert witnesses can serve the purpose of eliminating surprise, [4] the record in the present case does not support the Millers' claim. The Millers knew that Dr. Newton would testify at trial, and they had ample advance notice of the substance of his opinions. Well before trial, they had received a copy of his affidavit. After receiving the affidavit, the Millers conducted a deposition of Dr. Newton but elected not to question him about his assessment of Phillips's performance. At trial, after the court ruled that Dr. Newton could state his opinion, the court offered the Millers a forty-five minute recess to interview the doctor before he testified. They declined. Dr. Newton's testimony itself was hardly surprising: it conformed to the opinions stated in his pretrial affidavit and was largely cumulative of testimony offered by Phillips's other expert witnesses. [5] The Millers' claim of surprise is thus unconvincing. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. Newton to express his opinions. [6]