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
insurer’s response to petition as potential witness, motion to exclude
his testimony because he was not timely disclosed as a witness is denied.
|