 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis v. Columbia Doctors' Hospaital of Opelousas12/17/2003
under the Daubert/Foret standard. I find this basis for discounting Dr. Richardson's testimony to be manifestly erroneous.
The Daubert standard, established for determining the admissibility of expert testimony, is intended to ensure that scientific testimony is both relevant and reliable. State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.1993). This requirement recognizes that the rules on expert testimony relax the standard requirement of first-hand knowledge on the part of the witness, which is deemed to be justifiable where the expert's opinion has "a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline." Id. at 1122. I find that the witness's extensive experience in hospital care would render him eminently qualified to state opinion evidence on the hospital's implementation of its Fall Alert Program. Moreover, absent the trial court specifically finding Dr. Richardson's testimony inadmissible under Daubert, it did not present sufficient grounds for discounting Dr. Richardson's testimony. When a trial court commits manifest error, the appeals court conducts a de novo review of the record and, where possible, should render a decision. I do not feel this procedure is appropriate for this case. Therefore, I would remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial with instructions that the testimony and opinions of Dr. Richardson should be given full weight.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|