Opinion ID: 1863488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Martindale's Testimony

Text: ¶ 91. We also find the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in excluding testimony by Martindale that revealed he had learned additional information on the possible complications of TMJ surgery from internet sources. The circuit court initially overruled objection by the City during the direct examination of Martindale concerning what he had learned from the internet. Based on our reading of the record, the circuit court anticipated the plaintiff might testify as to accounts or stories of persons who suffered complications from TMJ surgery. Apparently, the circuit court would have allowed such testimony. The City asked for argument outside the presence of the jury. When the plaintiff began testifying during an offer of proof about the very specific medical effects of TMJ surgery, however, the circuit court sustained further objection by the City. ¶ 92. During the offer of proof, Martindale stated: [I] have learned that there are a lot of risks. That I can end up with some severe problems if the surgery does not go as planned. I could become  I could have problems with degeneration of the bones, the jaw bones, and have to face the possibility of reconstructive surgery, and loss of motion  those kinds of things. [W]hat I have really learned is that everything that I have, basically, that Dr. Ryan  it's all been confirmed. That reading documentaries, case histories, studies, they are all medical records, medical papers, and basically, they are confirming everything that I have already heard. Basically, what has been confirmed by these papers that I have read is that I have a high risk of or a risk of degenerated bone disease, arthritic bone disease, which would mean they would have to do plastic reconstruction of the joint, a very dangerous and very high risk operation, something I don't want to get into. I have also learned that I can get scarring of the joints through surgery, and I can end up with loss of motion, and so forth (questions of counsel omitted). We agree with the circuit court's exclusion of this evidence. [29] ¶ 93. Martindale did not establish that the complications of which he spoke were anything more than remotely conceivable. Brantner, 121 Wis. 2d at 666. This was especially problematic because his expert witness did not establish whether any complications were more than remotely conceivable either. Accordingly, we conclude the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in excluding this testimony.