Opinion ID: 2313425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiff-Appellants' Expert's Testimony

Text: Next, the plaintiff-appellants' argue that the trial judge improperly limited Dr. Roh's testimony. We review evidentiary rulings restricting or allowing expert testimony for abuse of discretion. [11] Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. [12] Here, the excluded evidence was testimony about Dr. Roh's other cases. Because those cases were not relevant to this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he limited Dr. Roh's testimony about his other cases. The trial judge indicated that the plaintiff-appellants offered no relevant fact that would aid the jury in determining whether the decedent survived the impact of the crash. The court held that Dr. Roh could, however, discuss those prominent cases if his qualifications were challenged during cross-examination. Despite the trial judge's decision, plaintiff-appellants did not seek to introduce Dr. Roh's prominent cases on redirect after his qualifications were challenged. We conclude that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in limiting Dr. Roh's testimony. Plaintiff-appellants also argue that defense counsel's statements about Dr. Roh during summation were improper. During summation, defense counsel noted that people with brain injuries would not go to Dr. Roh and that he was not qualified in understanding of levels of consciousness. However, plaintiff-appellants' did not object to these statements. Under Supreme Court Rule 8, only questions fairly presented to the trial court may be presented for review, unless the interest of justice requires its consideration. [13] The interests of justice do not require that we consider this argument on appeal. The jury instructions contained the customary admonition that attorneys' comments are not evidence. We assume the jury followed those instructions in the absence of any suggestion to the contrary.