The defendant estate brought a motion to limit the plaintiff to calling three expert witnesses at the upcoming personal injury trial, arguing there was considerable duplication among the proposed five experts.
The court reviewed the proposed experts and found that the functional ability assessment by one expert duplicated the range of motion testing in the in-home assessment by another.
The court permitted the plaintiff to call four experts (an orthopaedic surgeon, a future care costs evaluator, an in-home assessor, and a vocational evaluator) but excluded the functional ability expert.
The court also raised concerns about the admissibility of proposed psychiatric evidence regarding a defendant's mental capacity under the Mohan framework and requested written submissions before ruling on that issue.
