 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ison v. Ashland Hospital Corp.5/13/2005
that those records were relevant and admissible at trial. Ison asserts that Ashland Hospital had a duty to be familiar with the medical records contained in the Joint Exhibit filed by Ison and the hospital. Ison argues that Ashland Hospital was on notice of the fall, the resulting pain, and the fracture, and knew or should have known of Dr. Deitch's records regarding the link between the fall and resulting pain and the spinal fracture. She asserts that for this reason, the ruling on admissibility was in error.
Relevant medical records are clearly admissible. Baylis v. Lourdes Hospital, Inc., 805 S.W.2d 122, 123 (Ky. 1991). The purpose of pretrial discovery is to eliminate surprise, and to achieve a fair search for the truth. LaFleur v. Shoney's, Inc., 83 S.W.3d 474, 478 (Ky. 2002). Ashland contends that it was unfairly surprised by Dr. Deitch's proffered testimony. The court found that Ison had ample opportunity to make her claim of a causal link known to Ashland Hospital, and that she failed to do so. The court ruled that permitting such testimony at trial would be unfair to Ashland.
Ashland Hospital asserts that because Dr. Deitch was not listed as Ison's expert witness, he could not testify regarding his opinion as to the link between the cervical fracture and the fall. Ison did not list Dr. Deitch as an expert witness who would testify at trial. Dr. Deitch was identified as her treating physician. In response to interrogatories requesting the identity of her expert witnesses, Ison responded that the identity of such witnesses was not yet known. Ison never provided an expert witness to show the claimed causal link between the fall and the fracture. Ison did not list Dr. Deitch as an expert witness prior to trial. Kentucky law holds that where a physician is not identified as an expert in discovery, he can only testify to facts learned and opinions formed during first hand observation of the patient. Charash v. Johnson, 43 S.W.3d 274, 280 (Ky.App. 2000). The court ruled that Dr. Deitch could not testify to the claimed causal link. No abuse of discretion has been shown by Ison.
The standard of review of a court's decision as to admissibility of evidence is whether the court abused its discretion in making the ruling. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Ky. 2000). An abuse of discretion is shown by proving that the court acted in a way that is unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable or unsupported by sound legal practice. Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). Ison has failed to make such a showing. The court evaluated the evidence and the discovery responses filed by Ison, and determined that it would unfairly prejudice the hospital to permit unlimited testimony by Dr. Deitch. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion. For this reason, the court's decision is upheld.
ALL CONCUR.
|