“At the damages trial, the plaintiff testified as to his symptoms and complaints. His expert, Jerry Lubliner, who was board-certified in orthopedic surgery and sports medicine, did not treat the plaintiff, but examined the plaintiff on March 6, 2014, more than two years after the accident. He reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records, magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) reports, and actual MRI films. He concluded that the accident was the cause of bulging discs in the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine, and a meniscal tear in his right knee. He testified that, by the time of his examination, 2½ years after the accident, “you can realistically state that this is going to be a problem for the rest of [the plaintiff’s] life.” He opined that the plaintiff had [*2]suffered a permanent consequential loss of use of the lumbar region of his spine, as well as swelling, weakness, and loss of range of motion of his right knee. The Supreme Court did not allow Lubliner to testify about the plaintiff’s future treatment or prognosis because Lubliner only examined the plaintiff once and did not treat him. The court instructed the jury to consider the plaintiff’s damages from the date of the accident to the date of the verdict, and refused to submit the issue of future pain and suffering to the jury. The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $80,000 for past pain and suffering.
A treating physician may testify as to the plaintiff’s complaints and how the accident occurred, if the plaintiff’s statements to the physician are related to the diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff (see People v Gross, 26 NY3d 689, 695-696). That hearsay exception does not apply to a nontreating physician, “to prevent unfair bolstering of a party’s credibility” (Daliendo v Johnson, 147 AD2d 312, 320). However, a nontreating physician is not precluded from testifying as to a relevant medical opinion (see id. at 320). A physician who sees the plaintiff once can testify as to the plaintiff’s future prognosis, even if the witness does not provide treatment (see Singh v Catamount Dev. Corp, 21 AD3d 824, 825). Further, a nontreating physician can testify as to future pain and suffering (see id. at 825; DaSilva v State, 2007 NY Misc LEXIS 8932 [Ct Cl, No. 104938]). Thus, Lubliner was improperly precluded from testifying as to future pain and suffering. The weight to be given his testimony was a consideration for the jury. Further, the issue of damages for future pain and suffering should have been submitted to the jury. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages for future pain and suffering.”
This is an interesting case because I recall a verdict that was reversed due to a non-treating doctor testifying based upon conversations (s)he had with the patient during the one time visit. I am assuming the preclusion motion was based on that case. The Court clarified that this conversation would be hearsay; however, a review of the medical records will allow the expert to offer an opinion within a reasonable degree of certainty as to the past and future pain and suffering.
Dovberg v Laubach, 2017 NY Slip Op 07238 (2d Dept. 2017)
(1) “Prior to the commencement of a trial on the issue of damages, the defendants served an expert witness disclosure notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), advising the plaintiff that they intended to call Dr. Alfred Bowles, a biomechanical engineer and board-certified surgeon, who would testify that the force generated by the accident could not have caused any of the plaintiff’s alleged knee injuries, and that those alleged injuries were the result of wear and tear from athletic [*2]activities. The expert disclosure notice indicated that the proposed testimony would be based upon Bowles’s review of deposition testimony and the plaintiff’s medical records. The plaintiff moved in limine to preclude Bowles from testifying, arguing that his proposed testimony was speculative and without basis in fact, and that the expert disclosure notice did not make reference to any empirical data that Bowles may have relied upon, or any peer-reviewed journals, studies, treatises, or texts showing that an accident that does not meet a specific severity threshold cannot cause injury. In opposition, the defendants alleged that Bowles’s testimony would be based on scholarly works that were published in the fields of medicine and biomedical engineering, and had gained general acceptance in those fields. In support of this claim, the defendants listed the names of three works, which, according to their titles, involved head, neck, and mandible injuries. The authors, years of publication, and contents of these works were not set forth.”
(2) “The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, and permitted Bowles to testify at the damages trial. Bowles thereafter testified that in his opinion, with a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, the force generated by a low speed rear-end collision that propelled a vehicle into a 2000 Ford Taurus would not have caused the driver of the Ford Taurus to hit her knees against the dashboard. In reaching his conclusion, Bowles relied upon the defendant driver’s deposition testimony that he was driving at a speed of no more than 10 miles per hour at the time of the collision, and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she was driving at a speed of 3 to 5 miles per hour. Although Bowles did not know how close the plaintiff’s seat was positioned to the steering wheel and dashboard at the time of the accident, he maintained that moving the seat up would not increase the likelihood of a driver’s knees hitting the dashboard in a rear-end collision. At the conclusion of the damages trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that the accident was not a substantial factor in causing the injuries alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then moved to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, and the Supreme Court denied the motion. A judgment in favor of the defendants was subsequently entered, and the plaintiff appeals.”
(3)… “The expert disclosure notice simply stated that Bowles analyzed “the medical and engineering aspects of the accident.“ While the defendants cited to three works in opposition to the motion in limine, they did not identify the [*3]authors, years of publication, and contents of those works, or any explanation as to their relevance in evaluating the cause of knee injuries. Moreover, the defendants provided no description of the methodology Bowles utilized to determine the force of the accident, and the biomechanical engineering principles he relied upon in reaching his conclusion that the force generated by the accident could not have caused the plaintiff’s knees to come into contact with the vehicle dashboard. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to the extent of precluding Bowles from offering his opinion testimony that the force generated by the accident could not have caused the plaintiff’s knee injuries (see Saulpaugh v Krafte, 5 AD3d 934; cf. Valentine v Grossman, 283 AD2d 571). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial on the issue of damages.”
It is interesting to see a more robust review of what is required to allow a bio-mechanical engineer give testimony on the basis of a 3101(d). It would appear to me that a report with relevant and appropriate citations to the principles set forth herein would be the best way to go about this.
Yampolskiy v Baron, 2017 NY Slip Op 03556 (2d Dept. 2007)
“”[A] party’s failure to disclose its experts pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) prior to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness does not divest a court of the discretion to consider an affirmation or affidavit submitted by that party’s experts in the context of a timely motion for summary judgment” (Rivers v Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26, 31). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude the expert materials submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, as there was no evidence that the failure to disclose the experts was intentional or willful, and there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff (see Begley v City of New York, 111 AD3d 5, 36; Salcedo v Weng Qu Ju, 106 AD3d 977, 978; Hayden v Gordon, 91 AD3d 819, 820).”
Bartolacci-Meir v Sassoon, 2017 NY Slip Op 03040 (1st Dept. 2017)
“The nonconclusory opinion of a qualified expert based on competnt evidence that a defendant departed from accepted medical practice and that that departure was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury precludes a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants (see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542 ; Cregan v Sachs, 65 AD3d 101, 108 [1st Dept 2009]). However, the affidavit must be by a qualified expert who “profess[es] personal knowledge of the standard of care in the field of  medicine [at issue], whether acquired through his practice or studies or in some other way” (Nguyen v Dorce, 125 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2015] [pathologist not qualified to render opinion as to whether defendant deviated from the standard of care in the field of emergency medicine]; see also Atkins v Beth Abraham Health Servs., 133 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2015] [osteopath not qualified to render opinion on treatment of a geriatric patient with diabetes and other conditions]; Udoye v Westchester-Bronx OB/GYN, P.C., 126 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2015] [pathologist not qualified to render an opinion as to the standard of care in obstetrics or cardiology]; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018 [2d Dept 2007] [general surgeon not qualified to render opinion as to gastroenterological treatment], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 ).
Here, there is no indication that Dr. Befeler possessed the requisite background and knowledge to furnish a reliable opinion concerning the practice of gastroenterology (see Browder v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 37 AD3d 375 [1st Dept 2007]). While a gastroenterologist may well be qualified to render an opinion on a surgical procedure involving the gastrointestinal system, it cannot be said that a general surgeon is qualified to opine on any [*4]specialty simply because the specialist may eventually refer the patient for surgery. Indeed, Dr. Befeler averred only that his conclusion that both doctors “were negligent in failing to follow standard and accepted medical procedures” was based upon his “review of the above records, [his] education, years of training, and [his] forty year experience in the field of General Surgery.” Nowhere did the doctor set forth any experience in gastroenterology or detail the standard of care for that specialty. Moreover, the expert did not provide any detail as to what Dr. Scherl should have done other than refer plaintiff to a surgeon, which she did. While he referred to “further diagnostic testing,” he did not say what those tests would be.
Although plaintiffs correctly argue that a doctor may have the requisite knowledge to opine on a specialty outside his particular field (Joswick v Lenox Hill Hosp., 161 AD2d 352, 355 [1st Dept 1990]), here, their expert failed to say that he possessed such knowledge and to explain how he came to it. Further, he failed to set forth the standard of care allegedly violated. Thus, plaintiffs did not adduce the opinion of a qualified expert so as to rebut Dr. Scherl’s showing of her entitlement to summary judgment.”
DiLorenzo v Zaso, 2017 NY Slip Op 02402 (2d Dept. 2017)
“[A] medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field” (Behar v Cohen, 21 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047 [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, the witness must “be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” (id. at 1047 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered” (id.). Where no such foundation is laid, the expert’s opinion is “of no probative value” (Feuer v Ng, 136 AD3d at 707; see Tsimbler v Fell, 123 AD3d 1009, 1009-1010; Shashi v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 104 AD3d at 839; Geffner v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 57 AD3d at 842; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018, 1018-1019).”
Steinberg v Lenox Hill Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02383 (1st Dept. 2017)
Yes, the general rule is that a physician can offer an expert opinion about a medical issue and that will be sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing or to defeat a prima faice showing. There is a tension on this issue where I am seeing that the exception to the rule is more true than the rule itself.
“Plaintiffs’ expert was also not qualified to offer an opinion as to causation. He specializes in cardiovascular surgery, not neurology or ophthalmology. Moreover, he failed to “profess the requisite personal knowledge” necessary to make a determination on the issue of whether the perforation was responsible for plaintiff’s visual impairment”
Severino v Weller, 2017 NY Slip Op 01325 (1st Dept. 2017)
This is from the dissent which would have granted summary judgment to the doctor and the hospital. The statement of law is interesting and dare I say useful when looking at healthcare professionals’ affirmation:
“Generally, “the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor [*5]of the defendants” (Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544  [internal quotation marks omitted]). However, a plaintiff’s expert’s opinion “must demonstrate the requisite nexus between the malpractice allegedly committed’ and the harm suffered” (Dallas—Stephenson v Waisman, 39 AD3d 303, 307 [1st Dept 2007]). If “the expert’s ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation … the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to withstand summary judgment” (Diaz, 99 NY2d at 544; Giampa v Marvin L. Shelton, M.D., P.C., 67 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2009]). Further, the plaintiff’s expert must address the specific assertions of the defendant’s expert with respect to negligence and causation (see Foster-Sturrup, 95 AD3d at 728-729). Here, the opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, submitted in opposition to defendants’ prima facie showing that the injury sustained by Mr. Severino was the result of an unpredictable and unpreventable respiratory arrest, were based on supposition and hindsight, and were unsupported by the proof, and were therefore insufficient to raise a material issue of fact (see Manuel H. v Landsberger, 138 AD3d 490 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 909 ; Foster-Sturrup, 95 AD3d at 728; Fernandez v Moskowitz, 85 AD3d 566, 568 [1st Dept 2011]; Brown v Bauman, 42 AD3d 390, 392 [1st Dept 2007]).”
Mezzone v Goetz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08474 (1st Dept. 2016)
“However, plaintiff testified that his left foot wound did have pus emanating from the wound site, plaintiff’s expert opined that Dr. Ogbonna had switched his notes for the left and right foot, and the expert for St. Barnabas conceded that the notation was likely an error. Since defendants’ experts relied upon incorrect records, their opinions are insufficient to set forth entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Fleming v Pedinol Pharmacal, Inc., 70 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2010]).”
This case is terrific. It stands for the plain proposition: Wrong records? Opinion is out the door.
The broad scope of the cited to case of Fleming is even better: failure to address the pertinent records renders the opinion speculative.
Tate-Mitros v MTA N.Y. City Tr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07394 (1st Dept. 2016)
There seem to be a few attorneys who do not understand the minimal extent of disclosure and the timing issues behind CPLR 3101(d). This case is a prototypical example of when the parties convince a judge that 3101(d) is more demanding than that it is. The result of this argument seems to usually result in a new trial.
(1) “We find that Dr. Kurtz’s CPLR 3101(d)(1) disclosure notice was legally sufficient; it provided plaintiff with notice that the doctor would question whether a bus would have caused the injuries sustained by plaintiff. It is improper for a party to request the facts and opinions upon which another party’s expert is expected to testify (see Krygier v Airweld, Inc., 176 AD2d 700, 701 [2d Dept 1991]; see also Weininger v Hagedorn & Co., 203 AD2d 208, 209 [1st Dept 1994]; Conway v Elite Towing & Flatbedding Corp., 135 AD3d 893, 894 [2d Dept 2016] [“no requirement that (an) expert set forth the specific facts and opinions upon which he or she is expected to testify, . . . only the substance”]).”
(2) “However, a party should not be precluded from presenting expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), unless there is evidence of a willful failure to disclose and a showing of prejudice by the opposing party”
Rivera v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 06854 (2016)
Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and contrarily construed provisions of the CPLR is expert witness disclosure. The problem emanates from a reality that New York disallows expert witness depositions, unlike most states and the FRCP. The corrolary to the problem is that timing and substance issues of the disclosure become of paramount concern.
As a practitioner, there is nothing more obnoxious than an adversary who had at least 7-30 days to review the disclosure to state after a case is sent out for jury selection or a bench trial to object to the sufficiency of the disclosure. The time to object is prior to being sent out, and the proper mechanism is really through motion or order to show cause. This case solidifies proper procedure versus shot-gun procedure.
Of course, a party that gives a misleading disclosure will still pay the Piper his due.
(1) “CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires each party to “identify each person whom the party expects to call as an expert witness at trial and [to] disclose in reasonable detail the subject matter on which each expert is expected to testify, the qualifications for each expert witness and a summary of the grounds for each expert’s opinion.” It was within the trial court’s discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to preclude (see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385 ). Trial courts possess broad discretion in their supervision of expert disclosure under CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (see Bernardis v Town of Islip, 95 AD3d 1050, 1050 [2d Dept 2012]). “A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with 3101 (d) (1) (i) is left to the sound discretion of the court” (McGlauflin v Wadhwa, 265 AD2d 534, 534 [2d Dept 1999]; see also Deandino v New York City Tr. Auth., 105 AD3d 801, 803 [2d Dept 2013]; but see Saldivar v I.J. White Corp., 46 AD3d 660, 661 [2d Dept 2007]).”
(2) Plaintiff made her motion mid-trial immediately prior to the expert’s testimony. Plaintiff argues that at the time of the expert exchange, she had no reason to object to the disclosure statement because the statement gave no indication that defendant would challenge plaintiff’s theory of decedent’s cause of death. Assuming defendant’s disclosure was deficient, such deficiency was readily apparent; the disclosure identified “causation” as a subject matter but did not provide any indication of a theory or basis for the expert’s opinion. This is not analogous to a situation in which a party’s disclosure was misleading or the trial testimony was inconsistent with the disclosure. Rather, the issue here was insufficiency.