This decision provides reasons for rulings made during a medical malpractice jury trial concerning the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court addresses objections from both the plaintiffs and the defendant regarding whether expert opinions proffered in testimony exceeded the substance of their expert reports.
The rulings clarify the application of the 'latency' principle, which permits experts to explain and amplify opinions 'latent in' or 'touched on' by their reports, but not to introduce new fields of opinion without leave, especially where it would cause prejudicial surprise or undue delay.
