Dr. Black

The wife brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing high-range spousal support due to her deteriorating health.

The husband, a doctor, sought to terminate spousal support due to his impending retirement.

The court found that both the wife's increased medical expenses and the husband's retirement constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court reduced the husband's spousal support obligation for a two-year transitional period, after which support will terminate when the wife turns 65.

The wife's claim for retroactive support was dismissed due to her delay and the hardship it would cause the husband.

The husband's life insurance obligation was also reduced to reflect the remaining support payable.

Two personal injury appeals were heard together to determine the scope of Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding expert witnesses.

The Court of Appeal held that Rule 53.03 does not apply to 'participant experts' (such as treating physicians) or 'non-party experts' who form opinions based on their observation of or participation in the events at issue, rather than being engaged by a party for the litigation.

In Westerhof, the trial judge's erroneous exclusion of such evidence warranted a new trial.

In McCallum, the trial judge correctly admitted the treating practitioners' opinion evidence.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a medical negligence action arising from gynecological surgery in which sutures injured the patient’s ureter.

The court held that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence concerning the surgeon’s final inspection and failed to apply the only expert evidence addressing the precise operative circumstances, with the result that negligence should have been found.

The court upheld the trial judge’s rejection of causation between the surgery and the patient’s long-term fibromyalgia, but increased general damages for pain and suffering from $20,000 to $28,000 by using the date of the first surgery as the start of compensable harm.

The appeal was allowed, judgment for the plaintiffs was substituted, and the appellants were awarded trial and appeal costs on a party-and-party basis.