Issues involving the admissibility of a lay opinion on intoxication may occur in civil cases when a party seeks to comply with a rule that in order for evidence of intoxication to be admissible, the proponent of the evidence must demonstrate some causal connection between the allegedly intoxicated state of the person and his or her conduct of behavior. The essence of the ruling is that HIPAA pre-empts state law and therefore precludes such contact. Generally, defense attorneys cannot informally interview plaintiff’s prior treating physicians under HIPAA regulations. HIPAA-Defense Attorneys Interviewing Prior Treating Physicians In other words, one can use these doctrines against someone who had their day in court but they cannot use it against someone who did not unless they were in privity with the person who had their day in court. These doctrines only bind parties to prior litigation and those in privity with those parties. Social Security Numbers should not be disclosed in court documents. See Rule 16-1001 through 16-1011 and particularly 16-1007 (c) See also Commercial Law Article 14-3402. Rule Preventing Social Security Number Disclosure The leading Maryland case on attorney work product is EIduPONT v. To deal with issues involving vehicles that skid see Larkin v. Essentially, the court has discretion regarding whether to allow use of photos of minor property damage in an action for personal injuries. One of the controlling cases regarding the use of photos is Mason v. There is case law that suggests there is an enhanced duty to be observant in a school zone. On the other hand, the doctor probably cannot testify to opinions of other doctors. Rule 5-704 allows opinions on the ultimate issue. An expert can rely on hearsay or otherwise inadmissible evidence (including reports and records of treating doctors). Doctor Testifying From Another Doctor’s Records The real issue is often one of causality where the question is did the injury sustained by the plaintiff cause the loss of earning capacity, a factual question on which expert testimony may obviously shed some light. However, in the case of a non-obvious injury, expert testimony is required to establish loss of future earning capacity. Expert testimony is required to establish a plaintiff’s accident related disability, but expert testimony is not generally required to establish impairment of earning capacity. In order to prove lost wages and impaired earning capacity, see Stein on Personal Injury Damages, section 6:18. Proving Lost Earnings and Impaired Earning Capacity Evidence/Expert WitnessesĪn expert witness is required to prove medical and/or psychiatric conditions that are not patently obvious to a lay person. However, after the 1993 amendments to the Federal Rules virtually everything appears to be discoverable. These may not be discoverable, see Crowe Countrywide Realty Associates, Co., LLC v. Determining credibility is solely within the province of the jury. It is inappropriate for an expert to comment on the credibility of the Plaintiff. For a good discussion about malingering as evidence see the book written by Rick Friedman title Polarizing the Case-Exposing and Defeating the Malingering Myth. Determination of credibility is one strictly for the jury. Federal Rules of Evidence 704 permits an expert to testify on ultimate issues if the District Judge finds such evidence helpful but that principle has never been extended to the right of a psychiatrist to give an opinion on the credibility of a witness. The Fourth Circuit precedent in favor of exclusion of malingering testimony is found in United States v. Federal Expert Testimony Regarding Malingering State Traffic Safety Commission, 230 MD 91 (1962). Evidence/Expert Testimony Regarding InjuryĪlthough normally required, there is case law that suggests expert testimony is not needed to prove a causal link between the plaintiff’s banging her head on a car’s sun visor during an accident and a bruise and subsequent loss of pigmentation of her skin. If the person is no longer a party, the deposition testimony is no longer admissible unless unavailability for trial is demonstrated. Discovery-Use of Depositionĭeposition testimony of a party can be offered at trial as long as the person remains a party to the case. This case suggests that it is counsel’s responsibility to take a deposition, file a Motion to Compel or pursue further discovery if dissatisfied with discovery responses. The issue involved whether something was timely provided during discovery. 715 (2006) stands for the proposition that an attorney can’t wait until trial to object to the introduction of evidence when the objection should have been raised earlier. Discovery/Objections to Evidence at Trial
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |