 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ho v. Nishijima12/30/2003
rturned unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion." Mantalvo v. Lapez, 77 Hawaii 282, 301, 884 P.2d 345, 264 (1994) (decision of the court to exclude expert testimony on hedonic damages was not an abuse of discretion); see also Title Guar. Escrow Serv. Inc. v. Powley, 2 Haw. App. 265, 270, 630 P.2d 642, 645 (1981) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding proffered testimony of attorney for escrow company). "Abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregard rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment or party litigant." State by Bronster v. U.S. Steel Corp., 82 Hawaii 32, 54, 919 P.2d 294, 316 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
A.
The court had the discretion to limit the testimony of Doctors Olderr and Hosobuchi as to Ho's bladder and sexual dysfunction. The court noted that, although Dr. Olderr had a personal opinion regarding Ho's back problems relating to his bladder and sexual dysfunction, he would defer to Dr. Strode who was an expert in the area of urology. Dr. Olderr was not an expert on the issue of bladder dysfunction or sexual dysfunction. Furthermore, Dr. Hosobuchi testified at his deposition that he did not have his own opinion on the cause of Ho's bladder and sexual dysfunction problem, and that in his letter of July 3, 1997 to Plaintiffs counsel, he was "merely repeating Dr. Strode's opinion regarding causation."
Moreover, the issue of whether the 1993 accident caused Ho's bladder and sexual dysfunctions would be testified to by Plaintiff's urologist, Dr. Strode. Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 403 (1993) provides that, " lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." (Emphasis added.)
Any testimony from Doctors Olderr and Hosobuchi could be excluded on the basis that it would cause undue delay, be a waste of time, or was cumulative.See Aga v. Hundahl, 78 Hawaii 230, 241, 891 P.2d 1022, 1033 (1995). (A trial court's decision to exclude the incomplete and cumulative deposition testimony of appellee's expert doctor did not constitute an abuse of discretion since he did not offer an opinion different from that of the appellants' expert.) Therefore, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in limiting Ho's treating doctors' testimonies.
B.
1.
While it is a close question, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in striking all of Dr. Hosobuchi's testimony as a sanction against Plaintiffs for violation of the court's January 21, 1998 order limiting Dr. Hosobuchi's testimony. A trial court may properly exclude or strike testimony as a sanction for a failure to comply with court rules or orders. See Magyar v. United Fire Ins. Co., 811 F.2d 1330, 1331 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming the striking of plaintiffs' witness's entire testimony after he had violated the court's order by giving non-responsive answers). As stated supra, Dr. Hosobuchi was specifically instructed by the court that he could not testify that the 1993 accident caused Ho's bladder and sexual dysfunctions.
The court further instructed Dr. Hosobuchi not to refer to the automobile accident at all. According to the record, Plaintiffs' line of questioning invited Dr. Hosobuchi to render opinions regarding the link between Ho's low-back problems and the sexual problems, and making these connections to his most recent injuries. During trial, Defendant argued that these co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|