During a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to call her treating psychologist to give opinion evidence beyond that of a participant expert.
The defendant objected, arguing the psychologist's reports did not comply with Rule 53.03, the plaintiff had not sought leave to call more than three experts under s. 12 of the Evidence Act, and the psychologist lacked the requisite impartiality.
The court held that the reports collectively complied with Rule 53.03 and granted leave to call the witness, finding no trial unfairness or prejudice to the defendant.
The court also found no clear evidence that the treating relationship would prevent the psychologist from fulfilling her duty to the court, leaving the final assessment of her impartiality to a qualification voir dire.
