Opinion ID: 2283405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Admissibility of Dr. Jarvis' Expert Testimony

Text: Because Gerald Kivland, now deceased, cannot provide direct evidence as to why he acted as he did, an expert witness may be used to interpret the facts and data relating to his injury and suffering to supply the causal link from the injury to his death. The Kivlands' expert, Dr. Jarvis, testified that (1) Kivland's suicide was the result of the extreme pain caused by the surgery and (2) his suicide was not chosen rationally and, therefore, was not voluntary. If the jury were to believe these opinions, it could find that Kivland's death was the direct result of Dr. Gaines' negligence. The question, therefore, is whether Dr. Jarvis' testimony was admissible. The admission and exclusion of expert testimony in civil cases in Missouri is governed by section 490.065. [13] State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146, 153 (Mo. banc 2003). [14] The statute simply provides that the circuit court is responsible for determining whether (1) the expert is qualified; (2) the expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact; (3) the expert's testimony is based upon facts or data that are reasonably relied on by experts in the field; and (4) the facts or data on which the expert relies are otherwise reasonably reliable. Section 490.065. Appellate courts generally say they review a circuit court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Klotz v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, 311 S.W.3d 752, 760 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing Swartz v. Gale Webb Transp. Co., 215 S.W.3d 127, 129-30 (Mo. banc 2007)). The expert witness statute sets out the legal basis for admitting expert testimony. An abuse of discretion occurs if the court erroneously finds that the requirements of the expert witness statute are not met. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146. If the trial court finds that the expert is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, that the expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact, and that the facts or data the expert uses are reasonably relied on by experts in the field and otherwise reasonably reliable, the trial court must admit his or her testimony, and if not, it must be excluded. In deciding whether the facts and data on which the expert relies are otherwise reasonably reliable, the circuit court independently assess[es] their reliability. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d at 156. This is a straightforward application of the statute. [15] In deciding whether to admit an expert's testimony, the circuit court is required to ensure that all of the statutory factors are met; however, the court is not required to consider the degree to which they are met. So long as the expert is qualified, any weakness in the expert's knowledge is for the jury to consider in determining what weight to give the expert. Alcorn, 50 S.W.3d at 246. The jury will decide whether to accept the expert's analysis of the facts and the data. Elliott v. State, 215 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Mo. banc 2007) (`Any weakness in the factual underpinnings of the expert's opinion... goes to the weight that testimony should be given and not its admissibility.') (omission in original) (quoting Alcorn, 50 S.W.3d at 246). Similarly, any concern about the accuracy of the [expert's] instruments [can be] made known to the jury and goes to the weight the evidence should receive. Murrell v. State, 215 S.W.3d 96, 111 (Mo. banc 2007). As to admissibility, the circuit court is interpreting a statute. Accordingly, this Court reviews the interpretation of the statute de novo. In re Care and Treatment of Coffman, 225 S.W.3d 439, 442 (Mo. banc 2007) (The interpretation of a statute is an issue of law and is therefore reviewed de novo. ).