Opinion ID: 2402307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Doctor Rudders' Testimony

Text: The final issue raised by Riley that fell prey to the majority's waiver decision is his challenge to the trial justice's ruling that Dr. Rudders would not be permitted to testify about the details of the redacted notes and a telephone conversation with Dr. Janecka. Again the majority says that Riley has failed to provide us with us a sufficient record to evaluate the trial justice's decision. Specifically, the majority states as follows: In his brief to this Court plaintiff suggests that this issue was preserved by an offer of proof set forth on `pp. 227-264' of the trial transcript. The plaintiff did not file an appendix and we are unable to locate this offer of proof. I respectfully disagree with this assertion because the plaintiff's offer of proof appears in the record precisely on the pages cited. [18] Following this offer of proof, Riley's attorney and opposing counsel presented arguments concerning the admissibility of Dr. Rudders' testimony. The trial justice ruled in favor of defendant and stated in part as follows: Let me begin with Rule 703, which reads the experts' opinion may be based on a hypothetical question, facts or data received by an expert at or about the hearing, or facts or data in evidence of a type reasonably and customarily relied upon by experts in the particular field and in forming opinions on the subject. After further outlining the requirements of Rule 703 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence, the trial justice stated: In this case, at rock bottom, what plaintiff is seeking to do through expert examination of Dr. Rudders, is pour into his testimony expert opinion testimony of both Dr. Duff and Dr. Janecka that is not expressed in the medical record or otherwise to a reasonable degree of medical certainty; in effect transforming nonexpert opinion testimony into expert opinion testimony. I believe that that is an improper use of the rule. The justice's reasoning to support this ruling continues for several pages, and she specifically outlines the deficiencies of the proffered testimony. Because Riley took all the steps necessary to preserve this issue for appeal, I believe that the majority should have addressed the merits of his arguments.