 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travis v. Ferraraccio9/19/2005
ssist the trier of fact. In addition to these general requirements, a person offering an expert opinion in a medical malpractice case must demonstrate that he or she satisfies certain geographic and durational residency requirements and that he or she practices in a profession or specialty that makes the expert's opinion relevant to the issues in the case. Tenn. Code Ann. ยง 29-26-115(b); Church v. Perales, 39 S.W.3d 149, 166 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
As a result, in a case such as this one, the trial court must engage in a two-step process. First, the court must determine whether the evidence relied on by the plaintiff in opposing the summary judgment motion would be admissible at trial. United States v. Hangar One, Inc., 563 F.2d 1155, 1157 (5th Cir. 1977). If it would not be admissible, the defendant's summary judgment motion should be granted. If, however, some or all of the plaintiff's evidence would be admissible at trial, the court must then proceed to the next step of the summary judgment process and determine whether, "tak the strongest legitimate view of the evidence in favor of the [plaintiff], allow all reasonable inferences in favor of that party, and discard all countervailing evidence," there remain any genuine issues of material fact to be decided at trial. Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d at 210-11. The trial court's evidentiary decisions are thus anterior to, and separate from, the trial court's determination of whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact that would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143, 118 S.Ct. 512, 517 (1997); Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 868 P.2d 1224, 1227 (Idaho 1994).
In deciding whether to admit the plaintiff's expert testimony for purposes of ruling on the summary judgment motion, the trial court must employ the same standards it would use in deciding whether to admit the expert testimony at trial or in response to a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06 ("Expert opinion affidavits shall be governed by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 703"); Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir. 1997) (" he principles governing admissibility of evidence do not change on a motion for summary judgment"); Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 650 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992) ("the admissibility of evidence on a motion for summary judgment is subject to the same standards and rules that govern admissibility of evidence at trial"). Specifically, the proposed expert testimony must satisfy the relevancy test of Tenn. R. Evid. 401 and the strictures of Tenn. R. Evid. 702 and 703. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 264 & n.8 (Tenn. 1997); DeVore v. Deloitte & Touche, No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073, 1998 WL 68985, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 1998) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) ("Trial courts perform a gatekeeping function to make sure that expert and scientific evidence has the level of relevancy and reliability required by Tenn. R. Evid. 401, 702, and 703").
As with most other evidentiary questions, the admissibility of expert opinion testimony is a matter which largely rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002); State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997); McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d at 263. Nevertheless, the trial court's decision "is not insulated from appellate review . . . and may be overturned on appeal upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion." State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d at 669. The appellate court will find an abuse of discretion when it appears that the trial court applied an incorrect legal
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|