Court Opinion

ID: 9733352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:04:32.787266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:40.738036
License: Public Domain

NIERENGARTEN, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because of the broad discretion accorded the trial court.
I recognize the fact that appellants’ expert witness never agreed to testify on behalf of appellants regarding respondent’s lack of standard of care. But because of appellants’ pro se status and because of their claim of not receiving their expert’s letter, it would have been more desirable for the trial court to have granted a continuance for a reasonable length of time during which period appellants would have had an opportunity to locate another expert witness. Although this matter had been initiated two years earlier, appellants were notified of their expert’s position only 30 days before trial. Such a continuance would not have created an unnecessary delay. The primary factor to be considered is prejudice to the parties. Respondent doctors could hardly claim prejudice as a result of such a short continuance.