Opinion ID: 6496730
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Orrison

Text: ¶132 Lastly, on cross appeal, SouthTowne argues that the district court should not have permitted Smith to rely on the scans and related opinions of Dr. Orrison, who ordered an MRI of Smith in November 2013 but was unable to testify at trial because he passed away prior to its start. Specifically, SouthTowne asks us to hold that the district court abused its discretion in (1) failing to apply rule 703‘s balancing test when it denied SouthTowne‘s motion in limine seeking to exclude Dr. Orrison‘s scans, and (2) failing to grant SouthTowne a new trial based on the improper introduction of evidence of Dr. Orrison‘s assessment. ¶133 But the district court‘s ruling was correct. As SouthTowne notes in its brief, ―[a]s a general principle, medical experts often rely on data provided by specialists from other fields, treating providers, or data obtained from imaging scans or diagnostic tests.‖ And, as mentioned, under rule 703, expert opinion may be based on otherwise inadmissible ―facts or data‖ that the expert has been made aware of provided that other ―experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.‖ UTAH. R. EVID. 703. In fact, ―[m]uch of what experts rely upon in formulating opinions is inadmissible evidence.‖ Patey, 1999 UT 31, ¶ 33; see also State v. Kelley, 2000 UT 41, ¶ 23, 1 P.3d 546 (noting that we have held expert testimony based on psychological and medical records not performed by the testifying expert to be admissible). And while rule 703 cannot be used to circumvent other rules of evidence, ―experts may recite hearsay evidence in order to lay a foundation for the opinions they give to the jury,‖ Patey, 1999 UT 31, ¶ 33, provided the ―probative value in helping 40 Cite as: 2022 UT 29 Opinion of the Court the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs [any] prejudicial effect.‖ UTAH R. EVID. 703. ¶134 SouthTowne does not contest that Dr. Orrison was qualified to order and interpret the results of Smith‘s brain imaging. Nor does it dispute that MRI reports are reasonably relied on by experts in the field as part of the diagnostic process. As the district court aptly pointed out, SouthTowne‘s own medical expert relied on the records and opinions of other non-testifying experts in this case—including that of Dr. Orrison. And while the ―opposing party may challenge the suitability or reliability of such materials on cross-examination, [any] such challenge goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not to its admissibility.‖ Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 28, 29 P.3d 638 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted). ¶135 Importantly, SouthTowne overstates the extent to which Smith‘s medical experts relied on the findings of Dr. Orrison. Neither the scans Dr. Orrison ordered, nor his report of the scan findings were entered into evidence. As noted, Dr. Weaver provided medical testimony about the magnitude of Smith‘s injuries and opined on the cause of those injuries. See supra ¶ 121. But although Dr. Weaver based his conclusions in part on the report created by Dr. Orrison, he also interpreted Smith‘s imaging himself;23 conducted his own interview with and physical examination of Smith; and, coupled with his extensive personal experience in the field, relied on his knowledge of the events surrounding Smith‘s alleged carbon monoxide poisoning in forming his opinion. ¶136 The district court found that because ―[Dr.] Weaver used the report in forming [his own] opinions regarding [Smith], and because such evidence is the type that is reasonably relied on by experts in the field,‖ any potential prejudice to SouthTowne ―was outweighed by the probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the opinions at issue.‖ We review legal standards applied by the district court for correctness. State v. Bess, 2019 UT 70, ¶ 17, 473 P.3d 157. And here, the district court was correct in its application of rule 703 to its admissibility __________________________________________________________ 23 Indeed, in its motion for a new trial, SouthTowne argued that Dr. Weaver lacked sufficient qualifications to opine on Smith‘s brain imaging. The district court correctly held this argument specious. 41 SMITH v. VOLKSWAGEN SOUTHTOWNE, INC. Opinion of the Court determination regarding Dr. Orrison‘s reports and scans. Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s evidentiary rulings with respect to Dr. Orrison. ¶137 In sum, we reverse the underlying bases for the district court‘s conditional grant of a new trial, and therefore we reverse the district court‘s conditional new trial order. Further, we affirm the district court‘s rejection of SouthTowne‘s alternative arguments for a new trial with respect to Dr. Weaver and Dr. Orrison‘s scans and opinions. Accordingly, SouthTowne‘s request that we correct these evidentiary rulings in the event of a new trial is moot. And as we have explained, those arguments would nevertheless fail on the merits.