 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Due-Donohue v. Beal11/26/2003
e plaintiff argued that the affidavit was insufficient under ORCP 47 E because it did not say that Wyllie had "retained" an expert nor that the expert was "qualified." We held that " he rule does not require the recitation of any particular words or phrases." Id. at 478. This case does not help plaintiff here. Sisters of St. Joseph never raised the issue that plaintiff raises here, and our opinion cannot be read as addressing it.
Plaintiff also relies on a footnote in Varner v. Eves, 164 Or App 66, 79 n 8, 990 P2d 357 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 650 (2000), to support her position: "Although ORCP 47 E refers to an expert retained by counsel, we reject defendant's argument that the affidavit is legally insufficient because it stated that plaintiff--rather than her attorney--retained the expert."
(Citations omitted.) Again, the case is not on point; the issue in Varner was whether the affidavit had to specify that the attorney, and not the party, was the person who retained the expert, not whether the affidavit had to be submitted by the attorney.
We conclude that the trial court did not err when it refused to consider plaintiff's affidavit.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|