Opinion ID: 2194743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Other Three Weiner Prongs

Text: The remaining prongs of Weiner require only brief analysis. As to the third prongwhether the party seeking to introduce the testimony failed to comply with the evidentiary rules inadvertently or willfullyDr. Townsend claims that the language of the Rule 26(b)(4) statement was a willful effort to deceive him. See Adkins v. Morton, 494 A.2d 652, 660 (D.C. 1985). The record does not support this conclusion. Rather than leave the term standard of care out of its statement entirely, the Hospital stated that Dr. Bechamp would provide such testimony and cross-referenced his pre-trial deposition, in which he discussed standard of care issues at length. Cf. Kling, supra, 564 A.2d at 714. With respect to the fourth prong whether there was an adverse effect on the orderliness or efficiency of the trialno such showing has been made. Finally, with respect to the fifth prongthe impact of excluding the testimony on the completeness of information before the jury this consideration strongly supports the trial court's decision to admit Dr. Bechamp's testimony.