Emory Univ. v. Willcox
Decision Date | 17 June 2020 |
Docket Number | A20A0665 |
Parties | EMORY UNIVERSITY et al. v. WILLCOX. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bendin Sumrall & Ladner, B. David Ladner, Robert W. Stannard ; Huff Powell & Bailey, M. Scott Bailey, Erica S. Jansen, for appellants.
The Summerville Firm, J. Darren Summerville, Anna G. Cross, Kurt G. Kastorf, Maxwell K. Thelen ; Morgan & Morgan, Keenan R. S. Nix, Christopher J. Graddock, for appellee.
In this wrongful death case, Mary Kay Willcox, the administrator of the estate of Corlett Evans, alleges that, during a hospitalization in June and July 2015, Evans developed paraplegia as the result of the medical malpractice of the various defendants and their employees, and that she died more than two years later of complications of that paraplegia. This interlocutory appeal concerns the admissibility of expert opinion evidence that Evans's paraplegia caused her death. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse her discretion in allowing the opinion evidence, we affirm.
Id. (footnote omitted). So ." Bashir v. State , 350 Ga. App. 852, 857 (3), 830 S.E.2d 353 (2019). Although there are many Georgia decisions interpreting OCGA § 24-7-702 generally, no Georgia appellate courts have ruled on the specific aspect of OCGA § 24-7-702 at issue in this appeal, discussed below in Division 2, concerning the application of the "sufficient facts or data" requirement to opinions regarding medical causation.
United States v. Frazier , 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (III) (A) (11th Cir. 2004) (citations and punctuation omitted).
Quiet Technology DC-8 v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1341 (II) (A) (11th Cir. 2003) (citations and punctuation omitted).
We give broad deference to the trial court to fulfill this gatekeeper role. Allen v. CFYC Constr., LLC , 354 Ga. App. ––––, –––– (1), 842 S.E.2d 297 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).
With this law and these standards in mind, we turn to the expert opinion evidence at issue in this appeal. Dr. Gerald Gowitt, the chief medical examiner of DeKalb County, opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Evans "would not have died with the conditions which took her life had she not become paralyzed in June 2015." He opined that her "paralysis resulted in many new medical conditions that she probably would not have developed had she not become paralyzed," and he described in detail those conditions and their relationship to Evans's paralysis in both his written expert report and his deposition testimony. He opined that those new conditions "stressed an already diseased heart most likely afflicted with hypertensive cardiovascular disease [.]"
The defendants challenge this expert evidence solely on the ground that Gowitt did not base his opinion "upon sufficient facts or data," one of the statutory requirements set forth in OCGA § 24-7-702 (b). They argue the trial court abused her discretion in allowing evidence of Gowitt's opinion because it was based on incomplete medical records — while Gowitt reviewed Evans's medical records from June 2015 forward, he did not review any of her medical records predating her June 2015 hospitalization. The defendants assert that those earlier medical records would have shown that Evans suffered from uncontrolled diabetes, which they argue could have contributed to her developing the post-paralysis medical conditions that led to her death. Gowitt, however, testified that Evans's preexisting conditions, of which he had been generally aware when he reached his opinion, did not change that opinion.
The trial court did not manifestly abuse her discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to exclude this opinion evidence. The trial court's broad discretion afforded her considerable leeway in deciding how to assess the reliability of Gowitt's opinion. See Smith v. CSX Transp. , 343 Ga. App. 508, 512 (1) (b), 806 S.E.2d 890 (2017). See also Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee's Notes (2000 Amendments) (sufficiency of expert's basis for opinion is part of opinion's ultimate reliability, which is the "overarching requirement" of Rule 702 ).1 Even if, as the defendants contend, "the expert's opinion was based upon inadequate knowledge, this does not mandate the exclusion of the opinion but, rather, presents a jury question as to the weight which should be assigned the opinion." Toyo Tire North America Mfg. v. Davis , 333 Ga. App. 211, 217 (2), 775 S.E.2d 796 (2015) (citation omitted), affirmed by Toyo Tire North America Mfg. , 299 Ga. at 155, 787 S.E.2d 171. An expert has "great liberty in determining the basis of his opinions[.]" United States v. L. E. Cooke Co. , 991 F.2d 336, 342 (II) (A) (6th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). "As a general rule, the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility, and it is up to the opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination." Bonner v. ISP Technologies , 259 F.3d 924, 929 (II) (8th Cir. 2001) (citation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowers v. CSX Transp.
...methods; and (3) the expert witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." Emory Univ. v. Willcox, 355 Ga.App. 542, 543 (1) (844 S.E.2d 889) (2020) (citing Rule 702 (b)).[5] Under [Rule 702], it is the role of the trial court to act a gatekeeper of expert......
-
Wilson v. Redmond Constr., Inc.
...and (3) the expert witness ‘has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.’ " Emory Univ. v. Willcox , 355 Ga. App. 542, 542 (1), 844 S.E.2d 889 (2020) (quoting OCGA § 24-7-702 (b) ). "Under OCGA § 24-7-702, it is the role of the trial court to act as a gatekeeper......
-
Golden Peanut Co. v. Miller
...at 506 (2) (a), 841 S.E.2d 210 ; see also id. at 504 (2), 841 S.E.2d 210 (citing OCGA § 24-7-702 (b) ).27 Emory Univ. v. Willcox , 355 Ga. App. 542, 543 (1), 844 S.E.2d 889 (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted).28 See id. at 544-545 (2), 844 S.E.2d 889.29 See OCGA § 40-6-73 ("The driver......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Holder Constr. Grp., LLC
...and the relevancy and reliability of the proffered testimony." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Emory Univ. v. Willcox , 355 Ga. App. 542, 543 (1), 844 S.E.2d 889 (2020). We review a trial court's determination under OCGA § 24-7-702 for an abuse of discretion. See Cash , 342 Ga. App. at ......
-
Witness
...is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal absent manifest abuse. Emory Univ. v. Willcox , 355 Ga. App. 542, 844 S.E.2d 889 (2020). A trial court deciding whether to admit expert testimony conducts a rigorous three-part inquiry as to whether: (1) t......