Opinion ID: 1800365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the testimony of drs. chuinard and rost

Text: It has been suggested that since failure to supplement a response is not listed in Rule 37, NDRCivP, as a type of misconduct for which sanctions are available, the court must rely on its inherent powers to impose such sanctions as it deems desirable in its wide discretion. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2050 (1970). Olson v. A. W. Chesterton Co., 256 N.W.2d 530, 539 (N.D. 1977). Schwartz contends that it was reversible error to allow Drs. Rost and Chuinard to testify to matters outside the scope of their answers to interrogatories. He argues that Dr. Christianson: (1) failed to state fully the subject matter upon which his experts would testify, Rule 26(b)(4)(A); (2) failed to seasonably supplement responses to requests for discovery as to the identity of experts expected to be called as witnesses at trial, and to disclose the subject matter and the substance of their testimony, Rule 26(e)(1)(B); and (3) failed to seasonably amend prior responses. Rule 26(e)(2). Schwartz further argues that when Dr. Christianson's experts testified outside the scope of their answers to interrogatories, he was surprised and prejudiced, and was left with inadequate time to prepare a rebuttal. He further argues that Dr. Christianson did not answer interrogatories in good faith and gave evasive, false, and misleading answers. To support this argument Schwartz directs our attention to the supplemental answer in which it was first disclosed that Dr. Benson would testify for Dr. Christianson regarding not only the question of whether or not the decision to continue the operation was an anesthetic question and not a surgical question, but also regarding post-operative care. Schwartz points this out to suggest that Dr. Christianson knew, prior to trial, that post-operative care would be an issue. Schwartz argues that Dr. Christianson knew that he would have Drs. Rost and Chuinard testify on post-operative care, and should have promptly disclosed that to Schwartz. Dr. Christianson, on the other hand, argues that Schwartz's experts implied in their deposition testimony that Dr. Christianson had done no wrong other than to take the advice of his anesthesiologist. The trial court stated, in denying the motion for new trial: In this case, Defendants Christianson and Quain & Ramstad Clinic, after receiving answers to their interrogatories propounded to Plaintiff, took the deposition of Plaintiff's experts Boba, Quimby and Zylanoff. It is Defendants' contention that Quimby's and Zylanoff's opinion, as expressed in the depositions, indicated negligence on the part of the anesthesia people but very little, if any, negligence on the part of Defendants Christianson and Quain and Ramstad Clinic. At the trial these same experts testified to the negligence of Christianson and Quain and Ramstad Clinic. In so doing, their opinions expressed in court seemed somewhat expanded over the opinions in the deposition.... Some of this was explained as due to an inadequate record at the deposition. I do not intend to intimate that these people manufactured evidence or even that they changed their opinion. However, at the time the depositions were taken, the expert focused on the very obvious negligence of Ghaly to the exclusion of a possibility of slight negligence on the part of Christianson. Defendants' attorney asked a general question attempting to limit the deponent's opinion of negligence to the parties other than his clients and was successful. As so often happens, the focus at the time of deposition was on Ghaly and at trial was on Christianson and the witness is forced to expand on the testimony. However, defendants were faced with different testimony and were forced to defend against a different issue of fact than disclosed by discovery. We note that, during the taking of the depositions of Schwartz's experts, general questions were asked regarding post-operative care. There were no specific questions posed to the witnesses regarding their opinion as to the post-operative care rendered by Christianson, or specific questions regarding the duty of Christianson as an admitting physician. Dr. Christianson argues that he was justified in interpreting the answers he received to mean that the witnesses found no fault on Christianson's part in post-operative care. In addition, Dr. Christianson argues that at trial Schwartz's witnesses expressed an opinion that Dr. Christianson was negligent during post-operative care, requiring him to expand the scope of his defense. Schwartz argues that Dr. Christianson misconstrued the cause of action against him and, as a result, mistakenly assumed that the negligence in post-operative care was charged against Dr. Ghaly only. He chose, in taking depositions, not to question Schwartz's experts specifically on the subject of post-operative care rendered by Dr. Christianson. Schwartz further argues that it was clear from the complaint and the answers to interrogatories that he was asserting all seven items of negligence against Dr. Christianson and that Dr. Christianson, not Schwartz, should suffer any consequence resulting from the mistake he made. The trial court determined that the settlement with Ghaly changed the emphasis of the case. The trial court's memorandum opinion states that Schwartz's experts had somewhat expanded their testimony at trial beyond their deposition testimony, when the focus was on Ghaly and not Christianson. The trial court concluded that fairness required that Dr. Christianson be allowed to rebut the testimony. [3] The trial court also reviewed the cases cited by Schwartz where evidence was excluded because of failure to comply with discovery rules, and found them to contain deliberate or gross violations of the rules, resulting in surprise and prejudice. In the instant case, surprise and prejudice are absent. [4] We conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to conclude, under the circumstances, that Dr. Christianson's witnesses' testimony regarding post-operative care should be admitted. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the testimonies of Drs. Rost and Chuinard.