EXPERT TESTIMONY TO ROUND OUT THE MONTH: NEUROSURGEON & BAD FAITH.
(Photo courtesy of NASA)
In Jarman v. American Family Ins. Co., No. CV-18-00526-PHX-SMB, 2020 WL 7013957 (D. Ariz. July 10, 2020), the Court held that a neurosurgeon could still testify to facts observed as a fact witness even though the plaintiff-policyholder did not designate the neurosurgeon as an Expert Witness. Under Arizona law, this included testimony about delay and denial in an insurance carrier's authorization and thus in the policyholder's treatment that were perceived in the eyes of the neurosurgeon. Jarman, 2020 WL 7013957, at *1.
However, the Court did not permit the neurosurgeon to testify in this bad-faith case that the insurance carrier's allegedly unreasonable delays and denials were part of a habit or pattern that the carrier followed "routinely in other cases." That calls for the opinion testimony of an Expert, and this witness was not designated as such so that such testimony from this witness was excluded. Jarman, 2020 WL 7013957, at *1.
That takes care of the bad-faith portion of the Court's rulings. Another ruling is of interest, parenthetically. The Court declined to allow the neurosurgeon who had not been designated as an Expert Witness to testify to an Expert opinion that the carrier caused post-traumatic stress in its handling of the plaintiff's claim. Jarman, 2020 WL 7013957, at *2.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments