Opinion ID: 1591402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in allowing an expert witness in the field of psychiatry to testify as to hall's physical injuries and future medical expenses.

Text: ¶ 29. East Mississippi objects to Dr. Hiatt's testimony as to Hall's physical injuries and what medical expenses she might incur in the future. It contends that Dr. Hiatt, who had practiced family medicine in the past, was not an expert in orthopedics, infectious disease, vascular medicine, pain management or neurology. He never examined Hall, but testified after reviewing her medical records and photographs of her leg. ¶ 30. East Mississippi fails to note, however, that Dr. Hiatt served as a general medical officer in the U.S. Air Force, had served as a flight surgeon for the Mississippi Air National Guard, and had performed or assisted in numerous orthopedic surgeries. He was familiar with the use of antibiotics and how they treat infections. ¶ 31. Rule 702 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides that expert testimony must be based upon sufficient facts or data; the testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods; and the witness must have applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Poole, 908 So.2d at 722. Scientific knowledge means something more than unsupported speculation or subjective belief that is grounded in methods and procedures of science. Id. at 723 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), superceded by F.R.E. 702). Also, [u]nlike an ordinary witness . . . an expert is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions, including those that are not based on firsthand knowledge or observation. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786. This Court has held that, [a]bsent other grounds to exclude, an expert's testimony is presumptively admissible when relevant and reliable. Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 39 (Miss.2003). The basic threshold for admitting an expert's opinion is whether the testimony is based on scientific knowledge which would assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact at issue. Poole, 908 So.2d at 724 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786). ¶ 32. Dr. Hiatt testified that Hall suffered extensive orthopedic injuries, extensive soft tissue damage, and a string of infections. He pointed out that, after her hospitalization immediately following the accident, Hall was hospitalized several times for infections. He opined that, because of the nature of the soft tissue damages and the recurring infections, it was reasonable to assume that Hall would undergo additional treatment requiring hospitalization and possibly an amputation. ¶ 33. We find that Dr. Hiatt's testimony was admissible under M.R.E. 702. The testimony was not based on any new or untested medical theories, but merely on his lengthy experience as a physician. All his testimony was based on facts found in extensive medical records; therefore it was reliable. The testimony assisted the trier of fact (here, the circuit judge); therefore, it was relevant.