Opinion ID: 1249193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Verduyn's testimony.

Text: Mills' challenge to Dr. Verduyn's deposition testimony centers on the fact that his conclusions regarding permanency were based, in part, on a telephone conversation he had with Vasconez one day prior to his deposition. The doctor had initiated the conversation to see how [Vasconez] was doing. Because Vasconez had moved from Iowa to Ohio, he and the doctor had not been in contact for nearly fourteen months. During the conversation, Vasconez reported that he was still suffering headaches. In his opinion on permanency, Verduyn commented on their conversation and attached significance to the fact that three years after the incident Vasconez was still having headaches, a sign that the symptoms would stay probably pretty level for awhile. Mills argued in the trial court, and urges on appeal, that because Verduyn was not Vasconez'treating physician at the time of their conversation, Vasconez' statements to him did not qualify under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(4). Accordingly, Mills argues, they were unreliable and should not have been admitted. Her argument rests on the distinction articulated in Devore v. Schaffer, 245 Iowa 1017, 1021, 65 N.W.2d 553, 555 (1954), between treating physicians and other experts. In Devore we said: The distinction ... between a medical expert witness who is called to treat and actually treats the patient and one called merely to testify seems well established.... [T]he rule permitting a doctor to testify as to the history of the case is an exception to the hearsay rule based on `a probability that the patient will not falsify in statements made to his physician at a time when he is expecting and hoping to receive from him medical aid and benefit. But no such presumption can be indulged, and such testimony is not admissible, according to the great weight of authority, when the patient, having become a litigant, causes himself to be examined by a physician for the purpose of the latter giving evidence in a case about to be tried.' Devore, 245 Iowa at 1021, 65 N.W.2d at 555 (citations omitted). We begin our analysis of this issue by observing that Verduyn's testimony is arguably distinguishable from the expert testimony at issue in Devore because Verduyn had in fact been Vasconez' treating physician at one time. He plainly had firsthand knowledge of Vasconez' history, treatment and prognosis for recovery. Cf. id. at 1021, 65 N.W.2d at 555 (reversal ordered where jury unable to determine whether non-treating physician's opinions were based on personal examination or litigant's self-serving declarations). Nevertheless Mills correctly asserts that Vasconez' disputed statements do not meet the first prong of the two-part test for admissibility of hearsay under rule 5.803(4) adopted by this court in State v. Tracy, 482 N.W.2d 675, 681 (Iowa 1992): [F]irst, the declarant's motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purposes of promoting treatment; and second, the content of the statement must be such as is reasonably relied on by a physician in treatment or diagnosis. Accord State v. Hildreth, 582 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Iowa 1998). Plainly Vasconez' predeposition conversation with Verduyn had nothing to do with promoting his treatment. For that reason, it was error for the court to overrule Mills' objection premised on this ground. [1] Although erroneously admitted hearsay is presumed prejudicial, reversal is not warranted if the admitted hearsay is merely cumulative of other evidence in the record. Hildreth, 582 N.W.2d at 170. The testimony of Vasconez' then-treating physician, Dr. Pedoto, essentially duplicated the diagnosis and opinion offered by Verduyn. Pedoto's opinion rested, in part, on Vasconez' ongoing complaints of headaches, testimony consistent with Vasconez' reported statements to Verduyn. Vasconez furnished the same testimony at trial. Because evidence identical to the disputed testimony came in without objection, no ground for reversal appears.