Opinion ID: 2499586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Report of Dr. Bell

Text: [¶ 30] This Court has held that when a party claims an error in the admission of evidence on the basis of unfair surprise and prejudice, we will not consider that alleged error unless the party requested a continuance upon learning of the alleged surprise. Parrish v. Groathouse Constr., Inc., 2006 WY 33, ¶ 15 n. 4, 130 P.3d 502, 507 n. 4 (Wyo.2006); Meyer v. Rodabaugh, 982 P.2d 1242, 1245 (Wyo.1999) (failure to request continuance on ground of unfair surprise precludes party from contending on appeal that he was prejudiced). Morris did not request a continuance after receiving Dr. Bell's report. Nonetheless, Morris did clearly identify her objection to the report and moved for its exclusion, and the parties stipulated to preservation of that objection. Under these circumstances, we will consider the claim of error in allowing the report to be admitted into evidence. [¶ 31] We have considered the following factors in determining whether under the circumstances an expert report could be fairly admitted after the disclosure deadline: (1) whether allowing the evidence would incurably surprise or prejudice the opposing party; (2) whether excluding the evidence would incurably prejudice the party seeking to introduce it; (3) whether the party seeking to introduce the testimony failed to comply with the evidentiary rules inadvertently or willfully; (4) the impact of allowing the proposed testimony on the orderliness and efficiency of the trial; and (5) the impact of excluding the proposed testimony on the completeness of the information before the court or jury. Winterholler v. Zolessi, 989 P.2d 621, 628 (Wyo.1999). [¶ 32] The hearing officer, in denying the motion to exclude Dr. Bell's report, reasoned as follows: 1. This case originates from a work injury in 1995 and involves a claim for permanent total disability. This matter was referred to the Medical Commission in August of 2008. Several hearing dates were set that were continued at the request of counsel due to ongoing discovery. The last continuance motion was a stipulated motion filed in May 2009, and one of the represented grounds for the continuance was the Division's need for an independent medical exam. Both sides have been less than expeditious in conducting discovery. 2. It appears that examinations were obtained from Dr. Ruttle, an orthopedist, and Dr. Kenneth Bell, a psychologist. Originally the Division was going to use a psychologist in Colorado, but at the request of counsel for Morris, the Division had to find a psychologist in Casper. Presumably, had another provider in Colorado been located earlier, a report would have been generated sooner. However, some delay was encountered accommodating the request of counsel for Morris. 3. The Report of Dr. Bell notes that he saw Morris between August and December 2009. It appears that multiple visits were necessary for Dr. Bell to review massive records, obtain a complete history, perform psychological testing, and conduct a psychological evaluation. The last time Morris saw Dr. Bell was December 15, 2009. Counsel for Morris appears to have known of this ongoing evaluation and even wrote to the counsel for the Division in late December regarding this matter. Counsel for Morris did not file a motion to compel, a motion to expedite the report, a motion to enlarge the time, or a motion to continue, based on this pending report. Counsel for the Division raised this issue with Dr. Bell and that his report was forthcoming at the pretrial conference held on December 21, 2009. Counsel for Morris did not object or raise any issue as to this report at the pretrial conference. Further, since it was known by Morris and her counsel that an evaluation was occurring, counsel for Morris could have arranged an independent psychological evaluation. 4. Once the report was received, counsel for Morris acknowledges he was given the opportunity to depose Dr. Bell the week before the hearing. While this is short notice, counsel does not state why he was not available for the entire week of January 11, 2010 or why other counsel in his office could not have participated in the deposition. In fact, at the pretrial conference, counsel for Morris advised his schedule was fairly open for purposes of completing depositions in this case. There is no reason shown why counsel could not have obtained an expedited transcript of the deposition to submit to the hearing panel. 5. The parties have submitted what amounts to massive disclosure statements. The factual history and materials referenced in Dr. Bell's report are contained elsewhere in the disclosure statements of counsel and the opinions of Dr. Bell are not new, but likewise noted through other documents in the disclosure statements, (i.e., inaccurate history, substance abuse, psychological problems, exaggeration of symptoms, a psychological basis for her physical symptoms, prior and subsequent traumatic events, and a history of symptoms that were not medically verified). As such, there is no true surprise, and these matters are documented elsewhere in record. 6. Based on a complete consideration of the history of this case, the large volume of materials submitted, a review of the factual materials submitted, the matters at issue in Dr. Bell's report, the arguments of counsel, and the interests of justice and equity, the motion in limine should be denied as to Dr. Bell's report. However, under the facts presented, Dr. Bell shall not be allowed to testify at the hearing either through deposition or in person, unless consented to by counsel for Morris. [¶ 33] Although the hearing officer did not expressly identify the Winterholler factors in his analysis, the above analysis does illustrate that the hearing officer considered the appropriate factors. In particular, the hearing officer considered surprise, prejudice, the impact of excluding the report, whether the timeliness of the report was due to a willful act of the Division or its counsel, and the orderliness and efficiency of the proceedings. [¶ 34] Of particular importance, of course, is the question of unfair surprise and prejudice to Morris. On this question, we find that it is difficult, given the expansive record and medical history that the Commission had before it, to find either unfair surprise or prejudice. Dr. Bell was not the first medical provider to note the trauma in Morris' history or to opine that her psychological issues and addictive behaviors may impact her treatment, recovery, and her ability to return to gainful employment. Likewise, the record is replete with evidence of Morris' physical ailments unrelated to her back injury, and opinions that those conditions disable her from continued employment. Included in this evidence is Claimant's Exhibit 20, the 483-page Social Security Administration file relating to Morris' application for Social Security Disability benefits, which contains the disability determination itself and extensive medical and psychological reports on Morris. [¶ 35] Under these circumstances, the Commission's admission of Dr. Bell's report does not shock the conscience of the Court or appear to be so unfair and inequitable that a reasonable person could not abide it. See Watkins, ¶ 21, 250 P.3d at 1089. We thus find no abuse of discretion in the admission of Dr. Bell's report.