During a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff called her treating psychologist to give evidence as both a participant expert and a Rule 53.03 litigation expert.
On cross-examination, it was revealed that the expert had not reviewed the plaintiff's pre-accident medical records or the full medical brief before authoring her reports, relying instead on summaries and the plaintiff's self-reports.
The court exercised its ongoing gatekeeping function and disqualified the psychologist as a litigation expert, finding her evidence lacked the requisite objectivity because she could not identify what documents she had reviewed.
The court instructed the jury to disregard her litigation expert opinions, though she was permitted to give participant expert evidence.
