Opinion ID: 663755
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conrail's Expert Testimony

Text: 27 Richardson argues that the district court improperly allowed Conrail to call three doctors (who had seen Richardson), to present expert opinions concerning diagnosis, causation and disability, Pl.'s Br. at 10, because Conrail had not identified the doctors as experts before trial and had not provided information regarding the doctors during discovery. Richardson alleges he was prejudiced because the doctors' depositions were taken after his expert's deposition, and his expert, because he was unavailable after Conrail designated the doctors as experts, could not rebut their testimony. 28 Because the district court has broad discretion regarding whether expert testimony is admissible, we will reverse only if the district court's ruling was  'manifestly erroneous.'  Taylor v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 8 F.3d 584, 585 (7th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). Likewise, a district court's decision to admit non-expert witness testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Walton v. Jennings Community Hosp., 999 F.2d 277, 282-283 (7th Cir.1993). 29 We initially note that Richardson and Conrail named the doctors as witnesses. 5 Presumably, Richardson knew the substance of testimony his own potential witnesses would provide. The doctors were deposed more than two months before trial. Richardson does not dispute that Conrail provided him with all the reports and records it obtained from the doctors. Richardson stipulated that the doctors' records were admissible. 6 30 A doctor is not an expert if his or her testimony is based on ... observations during the course of treating; if testimony was not  'acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial'  and if the testimony is based on personal knowledge. Patel v. Gayes, 984 F.2d 214, 218 (7th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). The district court excluded what it considered to be expert testimony by the doctors, and only allowed them to testify as to matters within their personal knowledge. See e.g., Tr. at 97, 100; 103-105; 288-291. Richardson does not make any objections to specific testimony that was allowed. 31 Finally, both parties agree that the jury found against Richardson with respect to liability and did not address the issue of damages. Pl.'s Br. at 10; Def.'s Br. at 26-27. Therefore, any possible error in allowing the doctors to testify was harmless.