 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate Of Raymond v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.8/23/2000
ngle's testimony before the medical records had been formally admitted into the trial record was harmless error. Dr. Trangle specifically identified underlying facts in those records prior to giving his opinions. Moreover, the medical records here, as in Loura, were uncontroverted. Both sides had copies of the records to which their respective witnesses referred repeatedly without objection. Finally, as in Loura, the medical records containing the facts upon which Dr. Trangle relied were ultimately made part of the trial record without objection. In fact, it was appellant's counsel who formally offered the records into evidence at the close of appellees' case.
Appellant asserts that she experienced "demonstrable prejudice" from the admission of Dr. Trangle's testimony, because she would have won if he had not been allowed to testify. Since we have ruled that Dr. Trangle satisfied the foundational disclosure requirements of Evid. R. 705, appellant's claim of prejudice must be based on the alleged error in the admission of his testimony before the medical records were formally admitted.
Error in admission of evidence is not grounds for reversal, unless substantial rights of the complaining party were affected or it appears that substantial justice was not done. Civ. R. 61; O'Brien v. Angley (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 159, 164. In determining whether a substantial right of a party has been affected, the reviewing court must decide whether the trier of fact would have reached the same decision, had the error not occurred. Hallworth v. Republic Steel Corp. (1950), 153 Ohio St. 349, paragraph three of the syllabus.
The fact that Dr. Trangle was permitted to testify before the medical records were admitted in evidence did not change the outcome of the case here. As was noted above, even though the records had not been formally admitted, the jury had been advised of the specific facts contained in those records upon which Dr. Trangle relied in forming his opinions. The jury was provided with this information, as required by Evid. R. 705, before Dr. Trangle expressed his opinions. Because both sides, throughout the trial, treated the medical records as if they were in evidence, the jury was not even aware that the records to which Dr. Trangle referred had not been formally admitted before he testified. Moreover, the jury's reliance upon the reliability of the facts contained in the records to assess the validity of Dr. Trangle's testimony was not compromised, since the medical records were subsequently admitted in evidence. Thus, the jury's verdict was unaffected by any delay in admitting the medical records. The result would have been the same, had the error not occurred.
In light of the above, appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Trangle's testimony, where the record shows that the foundational requirements of Evid. R. 705 were satisfied. Moreover, error, if any, in allowing Dr. Trangle to testify before the medical records were formally admitted in evidence was harmless, where no prejudice was demonstrated.
This court's conclusion as to the first assignment of error is also dispositive of the second. In the second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying counsel's repeated requests to tell the court that his objections were based on his belief that no foundation had been laid for Dr. Trangle's testimony.
This court has ruled that a foundation for Dr. Trangle's testimony was properly laid in accordance with Evid. R. 703 and 705 and that any error in admitting his testimony before the medical records were formally admitted in evi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|