Opinion ID: 2363060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Robert Zimmerman, M.D.

Text: The plaintiffs next argue that portions of Zimmerman's testimony should have been excluded because: (1) his testimony was not the product of reliable principles and methods; and (2) the exhibits used during his testimony were not disclosed to the plaintiffs as required by RSA 516:29-b. The defendants argue that these issues were not preserved below. Alternatively, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs waived their right to contest Zimmerman's testimony on the basis of unreliable principles and methods because the plaintiffs' counsel conceded this issue below. On August 31, 2005, and October 4, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions in limine to preclude Zimmerman from testifying regarding the timing of the baby's injury. The trial court did not address these motions until the plaintiffs' objection during Zimmerman's testimony. The trial court overruled the objection and permitted the testimony, holding that although Bandl's Ring was outside Zimmerman's area of expertise, [t]hat doesn't mean he can't testify to other circumstances concerning timing, including the timing of edema. . . . This issue was properly preserved through the motions in limine and the objection at trial. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that Zimmerman's testimony was the product of unreliable principles and methods; they allege inconsistencies in his report and deposition testimony regarding timing, and point to statements made by Zimmerman that his opinion was based on experience. The defendants counter that the plaintiffs waived this argument by conceding before the trial court that Zimmerman was qualified to render his opinion on timing. We agree. The issue raised in the plaintiffs' notice of appeal is: Whether the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Robert Zimmerman to testify about the timing of [the baby's] injury based on the edema found on the CT scan. At a bench conference during Zimmerman's testimony, plaintiffs' counsel stated: He's very capable of looking at edema and timing it, and that's very legitimate, but when we go on to these other areas, it's in the area of neurology, that's different. This statement concedes the very issue that the plaintiffs now appeal. The plaintiffs argue that this statement made by counsel during trial does not bind them. We disagree. Admissions made by counsel during litigation are binding upon the client unless amounting to a compromise of the claim or a confession of judgment. Moore v. Allied Chemical Corp., 480 F.Supp. 377, 383-84 (E.D.Va.1979). Therefore, this issue was waived and we do not address it. The plaintiffs also argue on appeal that certain exhibits used during Zimmerman's testimony should not have been admitted because they were not previously disclosed in violation of RSA 516:29-b, II(c) (Supp.2006). RSA 516:29-b, II(c) requires that any exhibits used by experts must be disclosed in their expert report, unless otherwise stipulated or directed by the court. The plaintiffs objected to the admission of the exhibits at trial, arguing that they were not part of the expert disclosure. The trial court admitted the exhibits. The defendants argue that RSA 516:29-b was not specifically raised below and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Although RSA 516:29-b was not specifically cited by the plaintiffs during their objection, the disclosure issue was specifically raised and addressed by the trial court. Therefore, we hold that the issue was properly preserved below. We find no unsustainable exercise of discretion regarding the trial court's ruling on the disclosure of Zimmerman's exhibits. During oral argument, defense counsel stated that an exhibit list had been provided one month before trial, in accordance with the trial court's previous scheduling order. The exhibits themselves were disclosed approximately two weeks before Zimmerman took the stand. Although RSA 516:29-b, II may contain additional requirements regarding exhibit disclosure, these requirements are qualified by the phrase [e]xcept as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court. Therefore, the trial court was permitted to exercise its discretion and impose different requirements. We find that the trial court engaged in a sustainable exercise of discretion in overruling the plaintiffs' objection and permitting admission of Zimmerman's exhibits. Affirmed.