Lisa R. Friedley and Robert J. Friedley v. Paul V. Pulido, Gunite Express, and General Starr Indemnity Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

LISA R. FRIEDLEY AND ROBERT J. NO. 2020 CW 1128
FRIEDLEY PAGE I OF 2

VERSUS

PAUL V. PUL1DO, GUNITE EXPRESS, AND JANUARY 19, 2021
GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY

In Re: Raul V. Pulido, Gunite Express, Starr Indemnity &
Liability Company, and Continental Insurance Company,
applying for supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District
Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 120260.

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. The district court' s
October 7, 2020 judgment granting " Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude
Charles E. Bain, M. D. From Testifying as an Expert Witness, and

to Strike His Proposed Expert filed by
Testimony" Plaintiffs,
Lisa R.
Friedley and Robert J. the Friedleys"), is
Friedley ("
hereby reversed in part. " As the force of impact in a collision
lowers, and the the
seriousness of injury rises, expert

testimony becomes more relevant." Fussell v. Roadrunner Towing
and Recovery, Inc., 99- 0194 ( La. 1st Cir. 3/ 31/ 00), 765
App.
So. 2d 373, 376, writ denied, 2000- 1264 ( La. 6/ 23/ 00), 765 So. 2d
1042. A district court is afforded broad discretion in
determining whether expert
testimony is admissible, and its
decision with respect thereto shall not be overturned absent an

abuse of that discretion. Blair v.
Coney, 2019- 00795 ( La.
413/ 20), So. 3d , 2020 WL 1675992, at * 5. However, an

expert witness may not give expert testimony beyond the scope of
the field of expertise in which he is qualified. State v.
Williams, 615 So. 2d 1009, 1022 ( La. 1st Cir.),
App. writ denied,
619 So. 2d 543 ( La. 1993). We find the district court abused its
discretion by excluding the testimony and report of Dr. Bain in
its entirety. While we note that the Supreme Court excluded Dr.
Bain from testifying in Blair, we find those facts to be
distinguishable. The record in this case reflects that Dr.
Bain' s report is entirely in his area of expertise, and he
should not be prohibited from testifying as to the findings
contained therein. However, the district court did not abuse
its discretion excluding any opinions outside the scope of Dr.
Bain' s expertise as a biomechanic, including but not limited to
those statements made in his deposition Lisa R.
regarding
Friedley' s narcotic use. These statements are more prejudicial
than probative and will not assist the factfinder. Therefore,
the Friedleys' Motion to Exclude Charles E. Bain, M. D. is
granted in part and denied in part in accordance with this
ruling.

JMM
AHP

Holdridge, J., concurs. I agree that a limited
very
portion of Dr. Bain' s is
testimony admissible at trial.
However,
the trial court should be very vigilant to not allow

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2020 CW 1128
PAGE 2 OF 2

Dr. Pain to stray from his limited admissible testimony if the

apposing party makes proper objections.

CO 0 PFIR T CIRCUIT

PUTY L RK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT