 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tegman v. Accident & Medical Investigations8/13/2001
RAP 2.5(a). But in any event, it is evident from the court's memorandum decision that the court considered the actual settlement value of Tegman's case to be $35,000 plus her special damages. It was not necessary to include the special damages because they had already been paid. There was no unjust enrichment. CR 32
Finally, Noble contends the trial court erred in admitting the deposition testimony of Dr. John J. Hunholz in lieu of actual testimony, because the notice of his deposition was insufficient under CR 32. Dr. Hunholz was Tegman's treating physician.
Plaintiffs noted Dr. Hunholz' deposition for May 13, 1999 and timely served and notified all parties, including Noble. None of the defendants attended the deposition of Dr. Hunholz. He testified about Tegman's damages. Plaintiffs later moved to admit his deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony because they were unable to obtain assurances that he would be available for trial.
Noble argues that the notice was insufficient to advise her that Dr. Hunholz was to testify in the Tegman matter, the only one of the three matters in which Noble is a defendant. She contends that as a result she lacked adequate opportunity to cross-examine him.
We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert deposition testimony for an abuse of discretion. Allyn v. Boe, 87 Wn. App. 722, 738, 943 P.2d 364 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1020 (1998). Any admissible part of a deposition may be used at trial 'against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof'. CR 32(a). The deposition of a health care professional may be so used if 'before the taking of the deposition, there has been compliance with discovery requests' and 'if the opposing party is afforded an adequate opportunity to prepare, by discovery deposition of the deponent or other means, for cross examination of the deponent.' CR 32(a)(5)(B).
The notice of deposition may have been somewhat confusing in that all three cases had been consolidated, and the case numbers and caption of the notice did not directly refer to the Tegman matter. But we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the deposition. After the date of the order granting the motion to admit Dr. Hunholz' deposition testimony, Noble had two additional weeks before trial in which she presumably could have scheduled an additional deposition to cross-examine him. She has not shown why that was not possible nor that her failure to do so prejudiced her. We therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|