Linn v. Fossum

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District · 2004 · Evidence

EvidenceExpert testimonyHearsayMedical malpracticesection 90.704expert opinionhearsay basismedical standard of care

Facts

The plaintiffs claimed that Dr. Fossum failed to diagnose a ureteral leak after another doctor accidentally cut Beth Linn's ureter during a laparoscopy. Defense expert Dr. Weaver-Osterholtz testified that Dr. Fossum met the applicable standard of care. She said her opinion was based on medical records, deposition testimony, her own education, training, and experience, pertinent literature, and a brief consultation with other urologists. The plaintiffs sought to exclude her testimony as a conduit for the hearsay opinions of those non-testifying doctors, but the trial court admitted it.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the defense medical expert's standard-of-care opinion when the expert had consulted non-testifying doctors and relied in part on their hearsay statements. More specifically, was her opinion inadmissible because it was based exclusively on hearsay rather than on her own independent assessment and other proper sources?

Rule

Under section 90.704, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data reasonably relied on by experts in the field even if those facts or data are themselves inadmissible. However, section 90.704 does not authorize admission of an opinion based exclusively on inadmissible evidence; an opinion is admissible when it rests only in part on inadmissible hearsay and is also supported by admissible information or the expert's own review, training, experience, or assessment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a malpractice trial in Orlando, defendant physician Dr. Nikhil Mehra calls Dr. Elise Rowan as a standard-of-care expert. Rowan testifies that she reviewed the patient's chart, imaging reports, deposition transcripts, and specialty literature, and also discussed the case informally with two non-testifying physicians in her specialty before forming her opinion.

The plaintiff objects that Rowan's opinion is inadmissible because it rests in part on hearsay from non-testifying doctors. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that an expert opinion is admissible when it is based only in part on inadmissible hearsay and also on admissible information or the expert's own review, training, experience, or assessment. Consultation with other experts in the same field may be a permissible part of the basis, especially in determining medical standard of care. The testimony becomes improper only if the opinion is based exclusively on inadmissible evidence.