 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hobbs v. Harken6/9/1998
under this provision the evidence an expert relies on in forming his or her opinion "need not be independently admissible." State v. Candela, 929 S.W.2d 852, 866 (Mo. App. 1996) (citations omitted). Thus, the mere fact that Dr. Ward's opinion was based in part on information provided to him by others concerning the continuing nature of Mr. Hobbs' disability would in no way preclude admission of that opinion if the opinion were otherwise reasonably reliable. Such an opinion may be based on hearsay and still be admissible if the expert testifies that the information on which he or she relied is of the type reasonably relied on by experts in the field.
It is true that Dr. Ward here testified that he relied on Mr. Hobbs' medical records and on information provided by Mr. Hobbs' counsel that his injuries would persist unchanged for twenty years, and that experts in his field reasonably relied on such evidence. On the facts of this case, however, such testimony was not sufficient to make his reasonably reliable. This is because, while it may be reasonable in Dr. Ward's field to assume for the purposes of giving an opinion that information provided by lawyers about the nature of a person's injuries is accurate, lawyers are not doctors. If, in fact, at trial Mr. Hobbs failed to introduce medical evidence of such a long-lasting future injury , then the mere fact that Mr. Hobbs' attorneys said there would be such evidence could not bootstrap Dr. Ward's opinion into admissible evidence, for it would not be otherwise reasonably reliable.
Indeed, while we no longer require an expert to express his or her opinion in hypothetical terms, here, Dr. Ward's testimony was, in effect, hypothetical in form, for it was given based on the assumption that certain evidence would be offered to show that Mr. Hobbs' medical injuries would continue unchanged for twenty years. He agreed that, if they did not, then his analysis was defective. It is as if Mr. Hobbs' counsel had asked Dr. Ward "assuming Mr. Hobbs's injuries continue for twenty years, what future lost wages will Mr. Hobbs suffer?"
Where, as here, an opinion is hypothetical in nature, it Amust not be founded on mere assumption or surmise, but on facts within the expert's knowledge or upon hypothetical questions embracing proven facts." Lazane v. Bean, 782 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Mo. App. 1990), citing, Maples v. Charles Burt Realtor , Inc., 690 S.W.2d 202, 213 (Mo. App. 1985). For this reason, where:the opinion of the expert is drawn from a hypothetical question required because the expert lacks personal knowledge of all material facts, it is error to admit the testimony if the question does not embody substantially all of the material facts relating to the subject or omits necessary elements. The hypothetical question need not include all material facts in evidence but it must fairly hypothesize the material facts reasonably relevant to and justly presenting the questioner's theory of the case so that an answer of assistance to the jury in proper determination of the case may be elicited.Rust v. Hammons, 929 S.W.2d 834, 839 (Mo. App. 1996).
We held in Rust that the trial court had not erred in refusing to admit an expert's opinion concerning the time lapse between when water crested a berm and when the water reached the entrance to a parking garage, because this opinion lacked a sufficient factual basis. We held that, although the fact missing from the evidence could be hypothesized, "it [could not] be supplied with the precision necessary to allow for a meaningful opinion." Id. Accordingly, we found that the hypothetical did not "embody substantially all of the material facts," as required before an expert could state an opinion based upon it. Id
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|