Key Takeaway
Expert psychologist testimony based on unsworn peer review reports is admissible when witness can explain factual basis and be cross-examined in no-fault insurance cases.
Expert Testimony and Peer Review Reports in No-fault Insurance Cases
In no-fault insurance litigation, the admissibility of expert testimony often becomes a contentious issue, particularly when insurance companies rely on peer review reports to deny claims. The case of Psychology YM, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co. illustrates a fundamental principle about expert witness testimony and the foundation required for admitting professional opinions in court.
The lower court’s decision to exclude the psychologist’s testimony based solely on the format of his peer review report reflects a misunderstanding of evidence rules. When an expert witness is available to testify about the factual basis for their professional opinion and can be subjected to cross-examination, the technical form of their underlying report becomes less significant. This principle applies broadly across various types of expert testimony in personal injury and insurance cases.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Psychology YM, P.C. v Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 51316(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011)
Why this objection was even considered is crazy. It does not pass the smell test, let alone the laugh test. Yet, I cannot say I am the least bit surprised. Luckily, the order was reversed. Unfortunately, a new trial was ordered. The complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice.
“At a nonjury trial, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude the testimony of defendant’s witness, the psychologist who had prepared the peer review report upon which defendant’s claim denial was predicated, because his peer review report was not in admissible form. The Civil Court thereupon awarded judgment in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $1,078.48. In view of the fact that defendant sought to call as a witness its psychologist, who was prepared to testify about the factual basis and medical rationale for his opinion, as set forth in his peer review report, that there was a lack of medical necessity for the services rendered, and since he was subject to cross-examination, it was error for the Civil Court to have precluded him from testifying”
Key Takeaway
The appellate court correctly recognized that expert testimony should not be excluded merely because the underlying report lacks proper certification. When an expert can explain their methodology and conclusions under oath and face cross-examination, the foundational requirements for admissibility are satisfied, regardless of the report’s technical format.
