Opinion ID: 2180005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Testimony Properly Limited

Text: Russell's first argument relates to her unsuccessful effort to have the certain aspects of the proffered expert testimony by Dr. Ross Ufberg admitted at trial. Dr. Ufberg's entire testimony, if admitted, would have stated that both the K-Mart incident and the automobile accident were indistinguishable causes of Russell's RSD. Russell's pretrial disclosure regarding this expert witness, however, stated only that Dr. Ufberg would testify for Plaintiffs in this case. His CV is attached. The subject matter on which he will testify are [sic] contained in the records that have already been supplied to [defense] counsel. None of the records supplied by Russell to K-Mart suggested that Dr. Ufberg held an opinion that the K-Mart incident was the cause of Russell's RSD. In fact, to the contrary, in a February 22, 1996 letter that was given to K-Mart during discovery, Dr. Ufberg opined that the various treatments Russell received for her RSD were reasonable, medically necessary and causally related to the motor vehicle accident of 1/6/95. The Superior Court ruled that Dr. Ufberg's expert testimony at trial would be limited to subjects discussed in his reports and letters. In Delaware, the requirement of a party to comply with discovery directed to identification of expert witnesses and disclosure of the substance of their expected opinion is a pre-condition to the admissibility of expert testimony at trial. [1] If the substance of an expert's proposed testimony is contained in his deposition, the defendant is entitled to rely upon those statements in anticipation of trial. [2] Although K-Mart did not depose Dr. Ufberg, it was similarly entitled to rely upon the opinions expressed in his reports and letters that contained the substance of his proposed testimony with regard to causation of Russell's RSD. Moreover, limiting the testimony of Dr. Ufberg did not deprive Russell of expert testimony on the subject of causation. [3] Russell presented at trial, the testimony of four other medical experts, properly identified in discovery, on that issue. Therefore, we conclude that the Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in restricting the expert testimony of Dr. Ufberg.