Court Opinion

ID: 9644625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:00:56.271477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:16.090273
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING APRIL 18, 1994 Robert L. Depper, Jr., for appellants. Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, P.L.C., by: Stephen A. Matthews, for appellee. Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice. In its petition for rehearing, the appellee Shuler Drilling Company, Inc.’s (Shuler) sole point of contention is that this court erred in holding that the Bensons “did not open the door” to the testimony from Dr. Callaway regarding the medical records. In this regard, we noted that “as the Bensons point out in their brief, the parties stipulated prior to the taking of the deposition that ‘[t]he right to object to the testimony of the witness on the grounds of incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality is expressly reserved .. .’” Shuler claims that since the stipulation does not appear in the record, this holding was based on assumed facts not in the record. This is partially correct.  Dr. Callaway’s deposition was read into the record at trial. Thus, it appears in the transcript, but without the stipulations in question. Examination of the files and record in this case reflect that although Bensons’ exhibits one through six and Shuler’s exhibit one are in the packet, and the exhibit sheet prepared by the court reporter lists the deposition as being included, the deposition, Bensons’ exhibit seven, is no where to be found. In the Bensons’ brief, they cite us to page two of the deposition for the stipulations; however, this citation is of no moment since the deposition is not avail able. Thus'we stand in error as to the stipulation.  Regardless, Shuler’s argument does not justify granting its petition for rehearing because we spelled out in our opinion another basis for our holding in Bensons’ favor. Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(b) provides that an objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving into evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness was then present and testifying. Since Shuler’s counsel complied with Rule 32(b), our mistaken assertion as to a stipulation between the parties is of no consequence. Affirmed.