Opinion ID: 2378166
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Bateman Could Base His Opinion on Facts Alleged in Mrs. Eskelson's Deposition Testimony

Text: ¶ 16 The district court found that Dr. Bateman did not base his testimony on sufficient facts and data because he selectively relied on only certain testimony in the record to come to his opinion. This finding was erroneous. Although an expert cannot give opinion testimony that flies in the face of uncontroverted physical facts also in evidence, an expert can rely on his own interpretation of facts that have a foundation in the evidence, even if those facts are in dispute. Yowell v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 100 Utah 120, 110 P.2d 566, 569 (1941). Indeed, we allow experts latitude to interpret the facts before them. See State v. Schreuder, 726 P.2d 1215, 1223 (Utah 1986) (allowing expert to base testimony on inadmissible facts based on the assumption that the particular facts relied on will be trustworthy because the integrity and specialized skill of the expert will keep him or her from basing his or her opinion upon questionable matter). When . . . the parties' experts rely on conflicting sets of facts, it is not the role of the trial court to evaluate the correctness of facts underlying one expert's testimony. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1392 (Fed.Cir.2003) (interpreting similar Federal Rule of Evidence 702) [3] ; see also Atkinson Warehousing & Distrib., Inc. v. Ecolab, Inc., 99 F.Supp.2d 665, 670 (D.Md. 2000)([A]n opinion based upon a disputed fact may not be excluded simply because it pertains to an issue to be decided by the jury); TK-7 Corp. v. Estate of Barbouti, 993 F.2d 722, 732 (10th Cir.1993) (allowing expert testimony based on disputed facts so long as there was evidence tending to establish the disputed fact in the record). ¶ 17 The district court suggested that because Dr. Bateman relied more heavily on the testimony of certain witnesses, he was thereby expressing on opinion as to the truthfulness of those witnesses in violation of Utah Rule of Evidence 608(a), which governs testimony relating to a witnesses' character for truthfulness. We disagree. An expert's decision to rely on the testimony of a particular witness does not constitute the expression of an opinion as to the credibility of that witness. Moreover, once Dr. Bateman's testimony is admitted at trial, Dr. Apfelbaum will have the opportunity to explore the factual basis for Mr. Bateman's testimony and point out the dispute over the facts on which he relies. In sum, the district court erred in finding that Dr. Bateman's testimony was not reliable because he based it on his interpretation of the facts at issue.