Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the Probate Court erred by admitting a psychologist's written report containing hearsay and multiple levels of hearsay. The error was harmless because the psychologist's testimony and other competent evidence independently supported the appointment of the Department of Health and Human Services as David P.'s limited public guardian, so the judgment was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Probate Court erred by admitting the psychologist's written report, including quoted material from other medical reports, under Maine Rule of Evidence 703.
- Whether the admission of the psychologist's written report required vacatur of the guardianship judgment under the harmless-error standard.
- Whether competent evidence was sufficient to support appointment of the Department as David's limited public guardian.
Holdings
- Maine Rule of Evidence 703 permits an expert to give an opinion based on otherwise inadmissible facts and data, but it does not make the underlying facts, data, or hearsay statements admissible for their truth. The Probate Court therefore erred by admitting the psychologist's written report in its entirety.
- The erroneous admission of the psychologist's entire report was harmless and did not require vacatur of the guardianship judgment.
- The record contained sufficient competent evidence to support the Probate Court's appointment of the Department of Health and Human Services as David's limited public guardian.
Key quotations
“Rule 703 permits an expert's own opinion to be based on inadmissible facts and data, but it does not make those facts and data themselves admissible.” (196 A.3d at 899-900, ¶ 11)
“The Rule does not, however, authorize a fact-finder to consider hearsay communications contained in an expert's report for their truth.” (196 A.3d at 899, ¶ 10)
“In conclusion, the Probate Court erred by admitting the psychologist's report in its entirety; however, the evidence was duplicative of other record evidence, and therefore the error was harmless and does not require vacating the underlying judgment.” (196 A.3d at 900, ¶ 13)
Factual background
The Department sought appointment of a public guardian for David after concerns about his ability to care for himself. A clinical psychologist evaluated David, conducted cognitive testing indicating dementia, reviewed medical reports, and opined that David needed a guardian because of a history of serious medical crises resulting from failure to care for himself. The Probate Court admitted the psychologist's written report over objection and appointed the Department as David's limited public guardian.
Procedural history
The Department petitioned for appointment of a public guardian. After a one-day trial, the Probate Court appointed the Department as David's limited public guardian. The court did not make findings of fact in its final order, and David did not request findings under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). The Supreme Judicial Court held that the report was improperly admitted but that the error was harmless and affirmed.