Full text
Lisa R. Friedley and Robert J. Friedley v. Paul V. Pulido, Gunite Express, and General Starr Indemnity Company
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
LISA R. FRIEDLEY AND ROBERT J. NO. 2020 CW 1128 FRIEDLEY PAGE I OF 2
VERSUS
PAUL V. PUL1DO, GUNITE EXPRESS, AND JANUARY 19, 2021 GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY
In Re: Raul V. Pulido, Gunite Express, Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, and Continental Insurance Company, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 120260.
BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. The district court' s October 7, 2020 judgment granting " Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Charles E. Bain, M. D. From Testifying as an Expert Witness, and
to Strike His Proposed Expert filed by Testimony" Plaintiffs, Lisa R. Friedley and Robert J. the Friedleys"), is Friedley (" hereby reversed in part. " As the force of impact in a collision lowers, and the the seriousness of injury rises, expert
testimony becomes more relevant." Fussell v. Roadrunner Towing and Recovery, Inc., 99- 0194 ( La. 1st Cir. 3/ 31/ 00), 765 App. So. 2d 373, 376, writ denied, 2000- 1264 ( La. 6/ 23/ 00), 765 So. 2d 1042. A district court is afforded broad discretion in determining whether expert testimony is admissible, and its decision with respect thereto shall not be overturned absent an
abuse of that discretion. Blair v. Coney, 2019- 00795 ( La. 413/ 20), So. 3d , 2020 WL 1675992, at * 5. However, an
expert witness may not give expert testimony beyond the scope of the field of expertise in which he is qualified. State v. Williams, 615 So. 2d 1009, 1022 ( La. 1st Cir.), App. writ denied, 619 So. 2d 543 ( La. 1993). We find the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony and report of Dr. Bain in its entirety. While we note that the Supreme Court excluded Dr. Bain from testifying in Blair, we find those facts to be distinguishable. The record in this case reflects that Dr. Bain' s report is entirely in his area of expertise, and he should not be prohibited from testifying as to the findings contained therein. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion excluding any opinions outside the scope of Dr. Bain' s expertise as a biomechanic, including but not limited to those statements made in his deposition Lisa R. regarding Friedley' s narcotic use. These statements are more prejudicial than probative and will not assist the factfinder. Therefore, the Friedleys' Motion to Exclude Charles E. Bain, M. D. is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with this ruling.
JMM AHP
Holdridge, J., concurs. I agree that a limited very portion of Dr. Bain' s is testimony admissible at trial. However, the trial court should be very vigilant to not allow
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2020 CW 1128 PAGE 2 OF 2
Dr. Pain to stray from his limited admissible testimony if the apposing party makes proper objections.