Opinion ID: 1135777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Expert Affidavits on Summary Judgment

Text: The dissent believes that the affidavits of Gomez' and Moonshadow's treating psychologists are sufficient evidence of unsound mind to create a jury issue. But affidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment. Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir.1985) 10A (citing Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2738 (1983); see Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3188, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990) (The object of [Rule 56(e)] is not to replace conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit.). An expert affidavit opposing a motion for summary judgment must set forth specific facts to support an opinion. Rule 56(e), Ariz.R.Civ.P. (adverse party's affidavit must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial); Jones v. Merchants Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 42 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir.1994) (Self-serving assertions without factual support in the record will not defeat a motion for summary judgment.); Jackson v. Anchor Packing Co., 994 F.2d 1295, 1304 (8th Cir.1993) (Conclusory affidavits, even from expert witnesses, do not provide a basis upon which to deny a motion for summary judgment.); United States v. Various Slot Machines on Guam, 658 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir.1981) (in the context of a motion for summary judgment, an expert must back up his opinion with specific facts). There is more to admissibility than Rule 704, Ariz.R.Evid. The affidavits here are not objectionable because they embrace an ultimate issue, but because they are without relevant foundation. At trial, a party is entitled to the facts that support an opinion. Rule 705, Ariz.R.Evid. And the court is expected to exercise its discretion so as to prevent the admission of such opinions if there is any serious question concerning the admissibility, under rule 703 or otherwise, of the underlying facts or data. Ariz.R.Evid. art. VII, Introductory Note: Problems of Opinion Testimony. The same, of course, is true on summary judgment. Rule 56(e), Ariz.R.Civ.P., requires specific facts. The facts offered in support of the opinion evidence here are simply not relevant or material to the issue of unsound mind under the Allen test. The opinions of plaintiffs' experts misconstrue the true meaning of unsound mind. For example, Gomez submitted the affidavits of two psychologists, Francis Enos and Stuart Litvak. Enos's affidavit merely states that, in his professional opinion, Gomez has been of unsound mind within the meaning of Allen since the sexual abuse. Enos refers to no facts to support his opinion. He does attach his report, but it too fails to reveal any facts to support his opinion. The contrary is true. Enos's report documents that Gomez was able to manage his daily affairs. For example, he was able to save enough money on his own for a trip to Europe. Enos Psychological Report at 6; see Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990) (affidavits that are internally inconsistent are insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment). Doctor Litvak's affidavit is also insufficient. Litvak claims Gomez is of unsound mind, but the facts he lists do not support such a legal conclusion. He says Gomez is of unsound mind because he dropped out of high school, has never been able to hold gainful employment for a substantial period of time, has never been able to maintain a place of residence for a substantial length of time, squanders his money, and suffers from depression and stress. Litvak Affidavit at 5-6. If these facts, and others listed in Litvak's affidavit, were sufficient to support a legal finding of unsound mind, then all those who have less than satisfactory lives would be of unsound mind. Finally, we consider the affidavit submitted by Moonshadow's expert, Susan Lynne Morrow. She states that the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder made Moonshadow dysfunctional and depressed, thereby making it very difficult to conduct her life `normally'. Morrow Affidavit at 3. This is conclusory, and without value within the meaning of Rule 56(e), Ariz.R.Civ.P. If we were to accept the affidavits submitted by plaintiffs' experts as sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, then a motion for summary judgment would always be defeated by the use of an expert affidavit. The affidavits confuse the inability to bring an action with the inability to perform the basic functions of human existence. An inability to bring a lawsuit is no evidence of unsound mind. Under Orme School, a trial judge must evaluate the evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment and apply the same standard used for a directed verdict. 166 Ariz. at 309, 802 P.2d at 1008. Affidavits that contain inadmissible evidence, are internally inconsistent, or contradict the affiant's sworn testimony, and similar items of evidence, may create a scintilla or doubt, but still be insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Id. That is what we have here.