Joseph John Martin Masterson

The defendant in a medical malpractice trial brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary record after the close of evidence but before judgment, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent amendments to the Assistive Devices Program (ADP).

The defendant argued the new ADP policies would make the plaintiff's orthotic device eligible for funding, thereby reducing the future care costs claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's device remained ineligible under the revised ADP criteria because it was not manufactured in-house from raw materials.

The court further held that even if the evidence could change the result, reopening the trial after ten years of litigation would not be in the interests of justice due to significant delay, costs, and procedural complexity.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert toxicological opinion evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and signs of intoxication during a trial.

The expert was deemed qualified to testify on BAC levels and their physiological effects based on assumptions.

However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on whether an individual exhibited signs of intoxication or others' ability to detect impairment, holding that these are matters of common knowledge for a jury and do not require expert testimony.

The court also cautioned against experts developing hypotheses and sifting through evidence to support them.