In this personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court addressed an objection to proposed opinion evidence from a treating chiropractor on whether the plaintiff still required treatment.
Applying the framework for participant experts, the court held that treating health practitioners may give opinion evidence without rule 53.03 compliance only if the opinion was formed through observation or participation in the events at issue in the ordinary exercise of their expertise.
The court further held that a party should disclose in advance opinions to be elicited from a participant expert when those opinions are not contained in the records already produced.
A voir dire was ordered on admissibility, and any resulting prejudice was addressed by permitting the defence orthopedic expert to respond without full rule 53.03 formalities.
