Court Opinion

ID: 9529821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:54:31.595978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:55.941568
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
The trial court no doubt was aware that an expert witness may explain how the specific determinations contained in a report by non-testifying experts formed the basis for the witness's opinion. The majority opinion, here, acknowledges the existence of that rule. See Majority op. at 801, footnote 5. The trial court, however, excluded the specifics of the reports relied upon for the reason that Dr. Sprinkle, as a chiropractor, would not' be capable of being cross-examined with respect to that information. This ruling in turn, according to the majority, is premised upon the conclusion that a chiropractor does not have the same education, training or expertise as the physicians who prepared the reports.
The implication that chiropractors are automatically, by lack of education and/or training, incapable of analyzing and meaningfully answering medical questions sweeps too broadly. Doctors of chiropractic may or may not have the education and training necessary to render helpful and meaningful analysis with regard to the bases of their opinions. The answer may well depend upon the matter under inquiry and the specific matters which are contained in the reports referred to.
Here, however, I agree that the trial court was within its discretion in excluding the specifics of the reports which were, in part, used as a basis for Dr. Sprinkle's opinion. At best, the exclusion was harmless because Dr. Sprinkle did in fact testify fully and without limitation as to his own opinion.
' I fully concur as to Issue II, regarding the business record exception.