Schmidt, Sethi & Akmajian Blog

Evidence: Rule 702 Admissibility of Expert Testimony When Not “All Methods” Used in Forming Opinions/Admissibility of Statements by a Party in Pretrial Statement & Disclosures

Posted by Peter Akmajian | Dec 10, 2021 | 0 Comments

Larchick v. Pollock, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0649 FC (App. Div. I, December 9, 2021) ( J. Campbell) 

Expert's personal opinion as to admissibility of his opinions in a court of law irrelevant to question of admissibility & rule of 702 does not require expert use of “all possible methods” in forming opinions/court's ruling no evident supported a conclusion of an increase in value of business was error where such evident existed in pretrial statement and disclosure statement. 

In this divorce action, wife brought her real estate business into the marriage and the business grew during the 10 year marriage. During the divorce trial the husband offered an expert witness who had authored a report that the business had increased in value by $546,041 during the marriage. However the expert also opined in the report that “[I]n the event that testimony is required, either at a deposition or trial, we require the calculation schedules be upgraded to a formal summary valuation report with a conclusion of value.” The trial court precluded the testimony finding that Rule 702 of Evidence requires an expert “follow all possible methods [and use] all reliable methodology.”  The court then ruled there was no evidence the business increased in value during the marriage” so husband loses on that claim.  The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated and remanded in part.
 
Rule 702 provides that a person qualified by experience or knowledge may give expert opinions if it will help the jury decide the facts. The court is the gatekeeper to assure experts are indeed experts in the field in question but this function should not replace the adversary system. An expert's opinion on the admissibility of his opinions in court is not dispositive of the question of admissibility. This is a question for the court to determine based upon the rules of evidence independently of the expert's opinion. An expert is not required to have followed ‘'all possible methods” under Rule 702 in order for his or her opinions to be admissible. While this expert's opinions may have been seriously challenged on cross-examination and in the end the court might decide to give the opinions no weight, it was improper to exclude this evidence out of the box.
 
As to evidence of increased value in the business, even accepting the inadmissibility of the husband's valuation expert testimony, the wife had listed her own expert in the Pretrial Statement and Disclosures avowing that expert would testify the business had only increased in value $93,000. This was admissible evidence the trial court was bound to consider. Hence the ruling there was no evidence of increased value was erroneous.
 
CLICK HERE to read the full case.

About the Author

Peter Akmajian

Peter Akmajian is a trial lawyer with 30+ years of experience and 40 jury trials in Tucson, Phoenix, Yuma, Bisbee and Nogales under his belt.  These trials have mainly involved serious personal injury, medical malpractice and wrongful death.  He was a civil defense lawyer for many years before ma...

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Our team works together - for you!

Our award-winning lawyers are backed by a talented, caring team of legal professionals, paralegals, bilingual assistants, notaries, and others - all dedicated to you, your case, and the compensation you deserve.

No fees and no costs until we win.

Initial consultations are completely complimentary and we only get paid when you get paid. As such, we always have your case and your best interest in mind, because it’s in our firm’s best interest to do so.

Thorough investigation and preparation.

We tirelessly and thoughtfully prepare every case we represent as though it was going to trial. This lets insurance companies know that we are a force to be reckoned with. As such, we settle successfully 98% of the time.