Warden v. Exempla, Inc.

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed a trial court order striking rebuttal expert testimony in a medical malpractice action. It held that Dr. Shott's testimony properly rebutted the defendants' causation theory and that the late disclosure of life-expectancy opinions by Drs. Cokely and Wilson was harmless under the applicable discovery-sanctions rule. The court vacated the order, made the rule absolute, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Dr. Shott's testimony was proper rebuttal disclosure because it specifically refuted a central causation theory advanced by the defendants' experts and did not introduce an entirely new theory of the case.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the life-expectancy testimony of Dr. Cokely and Dr. Wilson because the late disclosure was harmless to the defendants.
3. The Colorado Supreme Court properly exercised original jurisdiction because the erroneous discovery sanctions significantly hindered the Wardens' ability to litigate the merits of their negligence claim and ordinary appellate review would be inadequate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dr. Shott's testimony challenging the NEACP report and the defendants' causation theory was proper rebuttal expert testimony under C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2)(C)(III).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the late-disclosed life-expectancy testimony of previously disclosed experts under C.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) when the late disclosure was harmless.
3. Whether the Colorado Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 to review interlocutory discovery sanctions that significantly hindered the Wardens' ability to prove their negligence claim.

Disposition

vacated