Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Experts — Undisclosed testimony — Trial court abused its discretion in allowing plaintiff’s expert to testify for the first time at trial about a prior MRI that plaintiff’s expert was not shown until well after discovery deadlines expired — Defendants were prejudiced by plaintiff’s intentional noncompliance with pre-trial discovery order where defendants had given an opening statement telling the jury that plaintiff’s expert was giving opinions without having all the necessary information, and defendants relied on defense expert being the only witness who had compared the prior MRI and the MRI conducted after the accident at issue in the case — Prejudice also arose from the fact that defendants had to confront undisclosed additional testimony from plaintiff’s expert regarding the comparability of the two different MRIs — Prejudice from a mid-trial medical examination is not merely due to the nature of the new and undisclosed testimony, but also a result of the surprised party’s inability to counter the new testimony — The time for development of new testimony is long past after opening statements unless extraordinary circumstances exist
44 Fla. L. Weekly D1789a
The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.
opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index