Miller v. Phillips

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding treating physician could testify about patient’s treatment despite not being listed in pretrial expert disclosures as he was “hybrid” fact and expert witness
• holding record did not support claim of surprise when doctor who had not been identified as expert witness testified as hybrid witness
• affirming trial court’s ruling that treating physician was “hybrid witness” who did not need to be listed as expert witness on disclosures despite physician testifying about patient’s injuries, treatment, and prognosis
• “When physicians are called to testify about matters pertaining to the treatment of their patients, the distinction between an expert witness and a fact witness inevitably becomes blurred.”
• “When (continued...) -5- 1459 Dr. Jill Abram, also examined the children as a member of their treatment team and based her testimony on her direct observations. Neither of these treatment providers was subject to the expert disclosure requirements of Civil Rule 26(a)(2)(B

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).