The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought to adduce opinion evidence from two treating cardiac surgeons as participant experts.
The defendants brought a motion to exclude portions of the proposed evidence of one of the surgeons, arguing it went beyond the scope permitted by Westerhof and that the surgeon lacked impartiality and specific expertise.
The court allowed the motion in part, excluding opinions on the standard of care prior to the surgeon's involvement and on whether earlier surgery would have changed the outcome, as these were not based on his observation or participation.
However, the court permitted the surgeon to opine on matters arising directly from his involvement, holding that concerns about his partiality should go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
