Evidence: Relevance

Rau v. Montana State Fund [06/04/08] 2008 MTWCC 26 Where a “medical peer review” was offered into evidence without any information as to the qualifications of the author, whether the author examined the claimant, and what, if any records the author reviewed in reaching his conclusions, the exhibit provides no meaningful way for the Court to assess how much weight, if any, should be given to the author’s opinion. The proposed exhibit is therefore irrelevant and not admitted into evidence.

Rau v. Montana State Fund [06/04/08] 2008 MTWCC 26 During a deposition of a medical expert, Petitioner posed a series of questions in which the expert was asked to consider a set of hypothetical facts and then opine whether the injury described was work-related. The line of questions essentially asked the expert to “play judge” and decide whether each hypothetical situation, which were loosely based on previous cases, would be adjudged compensable. The hypothetical situations bear no relationship to the case at hand. The entire line of questions is irrelevant.