Witnesses: Experts: Disclosure

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Hawkins v. Harney, et al. [3/27/03] 2003 MT 58 In non-workers' compensation case, Montana Supreme Court held that trial judge abused discretion in finding inadequate supplemental disclosure of expert witness that identified expert by address, age, schooling, and employment, stated that the subject matter of his testimony would be the way in which the subject veterinary case was handled, identified the substance of facts and opinions to which expert was expected to testify, and addressed the grounds for his opinion as "standard veterinary teaching and practice." The disclosure was sufficient to prevent surprise and promote effective cross-examination.
 
 
MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Clapham v. Twin City [10/16/12] 2012 MTWCC 34 Where Petitioner disclosed that his expert was expected to offer testimony consistent with her previously documented diagnoses, treatment recommendations, and causation opinions, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to exclude testimony at the expert’s second deposition in which she opined for the first time that Petitioner’s aggravation was permanent and not temporary.

Darrah v. ASARCO [4/20/01] 2001 MTWCC 17 Failure to comply with expert disclosure requirements in the Scheduling Order will result in preclusion of the expert testimony.
Fox v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [2/27/96] 1996 MTWCC 21 Where physician was listed in insurerís response to petition as potential witness, motion to exclude his testimony because he was not timely disclosed as a witness is denied.