Tort Law

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Expert Testimony Adequate Identification of Expert and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information on expert witnesses see the pages on Wikipedia.

Expert Testimony Adequate Identification Of Expert-Cases

2016 Mikhaylov v Sales, 291 Va. 349, 784 S.E.2d 286.
Plaintiff’s failure to set forth proposed testimony of expert as to future medical treatment in violation of Scheduling Order is barred as such testimony.

2011 Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis Hosp., 282 Va. 346, 717 S.E.2d 134.
In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff failed to comply with pretrial orders concerning identification of expert witnesses and timely disclosure of their testimony and therefore witnesses were barred. A supplemental expert designation filed by local counsel, who is not admitted in Virginia, was deemed to be an invalid instrument and therefore of no effect.

2011 Condominium Services, Inc. v. First Owners’ Ass’n., 281 Va. 561, 709 S.E.2d 163.
In this case, FOA did not itemize the specific amounts of penalties and interest to be testified to. The interrogatory answer did disclose that the witnesses’ opinion was that CSI’s failures resulted in underpayment of taxes and FOA incurring interest and penalties. The Supreme Court in deference to the Trial Court held that this answer was adequate.

2009 Graham v. Cook, 278 Va. 233, 682 S.E.2d 535.
Trial court properly limited cross-examination of radiologist called by the defense on the grounds that the cross-examination was simply an attempt by the plaintiff to seek an expert opinion from a witness who had not been designated as such by the plaintiff.

2007 John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581, 651 S.E.2d 851.
Expert testimony adequate identification of expert.Defendant’s expert witness disclosure statement did not contain any reference to the levels of asbestos in the ambient air and nothing revealed the fact that the witness would testify about that. As to another defense expert there was a reference to a report that was not attached as part of the disclosure. The trial court properly ruled that the information that had not been disclosed would not be admissible at trial. Even though to some extent this information had been disclosed during the course of depositions that was insufficient to comply with the applicable rule.

2007 King v. Cooley, 274 Va. 374, 650 S.E.2d 523.
In this medical malpractice action the defendant sought to present evidence from plaintiff’s treating physician. That evidence was properly excluded on the grounds that it was expert testimony and had not been identified in compliance with the Court Order plus it was cumulative.

2000 Walsh v. Bennett, 260 Va. 171, 530 S.E.2d 904.
In this medical malpractice action, expert witness designation of plaintiff was found to be deficient and plaintiff was given additional time to supplement. Prior to the expiration of that date, trial court struck the plaintiff’s expert witness designation for failing to produce witness for deposition. The dismissal occurred prior to the deadline that court had previously given plaintiff and as such, dismissal was premature and constituted abuse of discretion.