Janice H. Menkens, Appellant v. James T. Finley and Arron W. Finley, Appellees (Nebraska 1996)

Summary

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a medical expert’s videotaped deposition because the defendants failed to show that the witness was unavailable to testify live. It also held that portions of the expert’s causation testimony lacked an adequate factual foundation and were irrelevant because he had neither examined the plaintiff nor obtained her clinical history. The court vacated the verdict, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a new trial.

Holding

Admission of the videotaped deposition. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting Dr. Krause’s videotaped deposition because the defendants failed to establish that he was unavailable to testify live. A demanding work schedule, on-call status, possible emergencies, or inconvenience did not satisfy the unavailability requirement.

Foundation and relevance of the expert’s causation testimony. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting Dr. Krause’s opinions about whether the collision caused Menkens’s injury or pain because the opinions lacked an adequate factual foundation and were unreliable and irrelevant.

Janice H. Menkens, Appellant v. James T. Finley and Arron W. Finley, Appellees

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by