Dawne A. Latta

During a bifurcated trial on liability regarding TMJ implant surgeries, three mid-trial motions were brought concerning the calling of witnesses.

The defendant's motion to call Dr. Wyant was granted on consent.

The plaintiffs moved to reopen their case to call a former hospital records director regarding a spoliation claim, and to call the former chief of staff as an adverse witness.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to reopen their case to call the records director, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

The court also put the defendant to its election under Rule 53.07(1) regarding the former chief of staff, allowing the plaintiffs to call him if the defendant chose not to.

In a complex medical malpractice trial, the defendant hospital brought a mid-trial motion seeking leave under Rule 31.11(6) to introduce discovery transcripts of a deceased doctor from other actions.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing they did not have the transcripts when prior Pierringer orders were made and would be irreparably prejudiced because their experts had not reviewed them.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs did not have the transcripts prior to trial and that admitting them now would cause irreparable prejudice that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The plaintiffs moved under Rules 53.03 and 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to abridge the time for service of multiple expert reports and to obtain leave to tender expert opinion evidence shortly before trial.

The defendants opposed the late service, arguing prejudice due to the cumulative effect of numerous expert reports served days before the scheduled six‑week trial.

The court held that the late service undermined the purpose of Rule 53.03, which is to facilitate orderly trial preparation through adequate notice of expert opinion evidence.

While the evidence was relevant and probative to significant damages claims arising from a traumatic brain injury, the defendants required a fair opportunity to respond.

Leave was granted to admit the expert evidence, but the trial was adjourned and the defendants were given time to prepare responding expert reports.