Opinion ID: 4537270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Expert Designation

Text: We find no error in the trial court’s decision to admit Dr. Goldstein’s expert testimony. We review the trial court’s admission of expert testimony for abuse of discretion, only disturbing that ruling if it is “manifestly erroneous.” Dickerson v. District of Columbia, 182 A.3d 721, 726 (D.C. 2018). The “goal” of the trial court’s role as a gatekeeper “is to deny admission to expert testimony that is not reliable,” and to admit that which is “derived from reliable principles that have been reliably applied.” Motorola, Inc. v Murray, 147 A.3d 751, 755, 757 (D.C. 2016) (en banc). 11 Appellant also argues that trial court erred in considering evidence that had “no temporal proximity” to the date the will was executed (evidence showing Mr. Ebner’s sixth-grade education, the photograph from the October 2013 party, and Mr. Ebner’s unspecified childhood trauma) because “the drafter of a will would not likely have been privy” to this information. We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. See Jackson v. George, 146 A.3d 405, 420 (D.C. 2016). While we analyze testamentary capacity at the time a testator executes a will, evidence of mental capacity preceding that date may be probative of a testator’s capacity. See Barbour, 4 App. D.C. at 548. Whether and how much weight to afford that evidence is left to the factfinder. See In re H.R., 206 A.3d 884, 887 (D.C. 2019) (Under D.C. Code § 17-305(a), this court “review[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding, giving full play to the right of the judge, as the trier of fact, to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw reasonable inferences.” (cleaned up)). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s consideration of this evidence. 27 “While a physician need not be a specialist” in a particular field to provide expert testimony, “he or she must still be a qualified physician and have familiarity with the particular subject matter in order to render an expert medical opinion.” Dickerson, 182 A.3d at 729. The trial court admitted Dr. Goldstein as an expert in internal medicine, and specifically nephrology, because of his knowledge and experience in those subject areas. We find no error in that decision. Appellant primarily challenges the evidentiary basis underlying Dr. Goldstein’s expert opinion, such as his failure to speak with certain people or review certain records; the trial court properly understood these concerns as relevant to the weight to afford the opinion, rather than its admissibility. See, e.g., Russell v. Call/D, LLC, 122 A.3d 860, 868 (D.C. 2015) (noting that “lack of textual support” supporting expert opinion, e.g., from peer-reviewed journals or data that provides the highest degree of certainty, “may go to the weight, not the admissibility of the expert’s testimony”). Therefore, we will not disturb the trial court’s decision here.