Opinion ID: 1878709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING McCAFFREY'S OBJECTION TO EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY OFFERED BY DR. KIM A. PUCKETT

Text: ¶ 26. McCaffrey argues that the trial court erred in allowing Puckett, a fact witness, to express an expert opinion when he had not been designated as an expert in his answers to McCaffrey's interrogatories. Specifically, McCaffrey objects to the following testimony by Puckett that he did not deviate from the standard of care in his treatment of McCaffrey: Q. Alright. Admitting that you were inadequate in your record keeping, does that in any way connect to the fact that you deviated from any kind of standard of care in your treatment of Mr. McCaffrey? A. No, sir. I did not deviate in any care. MR. BAREFIELD: Your Honor, I believe the witness is testifying as a fact witness and not to provide opinion testimony. THE COURT: Alright. I'll overrule and allow him to answer. Q. What did you say your answer was? A. I did not deviate from the standard of care of Mr. McCaffrey. ¶ 27. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) states in pertinent part: Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts ... may be obtained only as follows.... A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. ¶ 28. Whether a discovery violation occurred depends upon the characterization of Puckett's testimony. In Langston v. Kidder, 670 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Miss.1995), this Court noted the importance of distinguishing between M.R.E. 701, lay opinion, and M.R.E. 702, expert opinion, for the purposes of discovery. In that case, a defendant who had not been listed as an expert witness in the answers to interrogatories testified as to the standards and customs in the trucking industry. Id. at 3. This Court held that the trial court erred in allowing the witness to testify, explaining [w]e have, in a series of cases, established a bright line rule. That is, where, in order to express the opinion, the witness must possess some experience or expertise beyond that of the average, randomly selected adult, it is a M.R.E. 702 opinion and not a 701 opinion. .... Stated differently, if a trial court must delve into a witness's background to determine if he possesses the necessary education, experience, knowledge or training in a specific field in order for the witness to testify as to his opinions concerning that particular field, then M.R.E. 702 applies. Id. at 3-4. Because the witness's testimony as to trucking industry customs was derived from specialized knowledge, it was subject to disclosure in response to the expert witness interrogatory. Id. at 4. ¶ 29. In the present case, the opinion offered by Puckett as to his compliance with the standard of care necessarily requires expertise in the field of chiropractics. If, on remand, Puckett attempts to give an expert opinion, he must be designated as an expert witness in his responses to discovery. [T]hough this Court has recognized that some text writers note an overlap between rules 701 and 702, litigants are forewarned to err on the side of disclosure, where the question is whether or how to respond to discovery inquiries regarding expert opinion. Langston, 670 So.2d at 4. ¶ 30. McCaffrey also contends that Puckett offered an expert opinion when he was asked if Mr. McCaffrey had a herniated disc when he came into your office, would that have shown up on a plain x-ray at your office? However, Puckett never responded to the question which was ultimately withdrawn by defense counsel. There is no error because Puckett never answered the question. ¶ 31. Finally, defense counsel asked Puckett, Would you state for the record whether or not there's any standard, any rule, any law, any statute, or any of the above, that you've ever read or have been taught in any school that requires that any of those tests be performed before you do a chiropractic manipulation? McCaffrey's attorney objected, contending [i]f he's trying to get in some opinion testimony, then he ought to have an expert up here to do it, and we object to this opinion testimony from a fact witness. Puckett admitted he had no personal knowledge to which the court stated [w]ell, if you do not, then you can't testify. Again, Puckett never responded to the question. We find no error.