Hicks v. Zondag, 317 P.3d 606

Johnna Hicks suffered chronic severe abdominal pain treated with opioids; Dr. Tuenis Zondag (pain-medicine family physician) prescribed Actiq (fentanyl lozenges) among other meds.
Hicks died at home; autopsy attributed death to accidental overdose from fentanyl and fluoxetine.
Hicks's estate sued Zondag (and his employer for vicarious liability) for negligent treatment causing death; trial lasted nine days and jury returned a defense verdict.
Pretrial, the estate identified one standard-of-care expert; defendants disclosed two experts (Drs. Webster and Fitzgibbon). The estate moved in limine to limit defense to one such expert; the district court conditionally denied, leaving Rule 403 (cumulative evidence) objections open for trial.
Both defense experts testified at trial; the estate cross-examined but did not object at trial under Rule 403. On appeal, the estate argued the district court erred in allowing both experts; the question became whether the estate waived its objection by failing to renew it at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether estate preserved its objection to cumulative expert testimony after the court denied the limine motion conditionally	The limine ruling preserved the issue for appeal; no need to object again at trial	Because the district court deferred a definitive ruling, the estate had to object at trial to preserve the claim	Court held the estate waived the objection by not renewing it at trial because the limine ruling was non‑definitive
Whether admission of two defense standard‑of‑care experts required reversal absent a contemporaneous Rule 403 objection	Admission of duplicative experts prejudiced the estate and warranted reversal	Trial judges have broad discretion under W.R.E. 403; absent objection, reversal requires plain‑error showing	Court declined to find plain error (estate did not argue plain error); discretionary Rule 403 determinations are fact‑specific and hard to reverse

Dorr v. Smith, Keller & Assocs., 238 P.3d 549 (Wyo. 2010) (de novo review principle for rule construction)
Miracle v. Barker, 136 P.2d 678 (Wyo. 1943) (pre‑rules precedent requiring renewal of objection when court defers ruling)
Wyoming Sawmills, Inc. v. Morris, 756 P.2d 774 (Wyo. 1988) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
Leach v. State, 312 P.3d 795 (Wyo. 2013) (elements of plain‑error review)
Winterholler v. Zolessi, 989 P.2d 621 (Wyo. 1999) (Rule 403 multiple‑expert analysis is case‑specific)
Case v. Outback Pipe Haulers, 171 P.3d 514 (Wyo. 2007) (deference to trial court evidentiary discretion)
Vigil v. State, 224 P.3d 31 (Wyo. 2010) (appellate court will not review claimed error without a complete record and briefing)