Norris v. Fritz
364 Mont. 63
Mont.2012Background
- Norris sued Dr. Fritz after T.M.N. suffered severe, permanent injury from hypoglycemia in infancy following neonatal glucose monitoring decisions.
- Strizich, a treating pediatrician, provided care and would testify on standard of care as a hybrid witness.
- District Court allowed treating physicians to testify and later limited Strizich to personal-practice testimony, excluding standard-of-care testimony.
- Norris argued pretrial disclosures and records gave adequate notice of Strizich’s standard-of-care opinions and that exclusion caused unfair surprise.
- Trial proceeded with Fritz presenting three standard-of-care experts; the jury found for Fritz; Norris moved for a new trial alleging unfair surprise and abuse of discretion.
- Montana Supreme Court reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by excluding Strizich’s standard-of-care testimony and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding the treating physician’s standard of care testimony was an abuse of discretion | Norris contends sufficient notice existed to present Strizich’s standard of care. | Fritz argues Norris failed to provide adequate notice of Strizich’s opinions. | Yes, abuse of discretion; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faulconbridge v. State, 333 Mont. 186 (2006 MT) (disclosure requirements for non-retained experts; adequate notice of non-retained expert testimony to prevent unfair surprise)
- Sunburst Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 338 Mont. 259 (2007 MT) (premises for treating-physician testimony; 26(b)(4) disclosure distinctions; notice impacts)
- Schreiber v. Estate of Kiser, 989 P.2d 720 (Cal. 1999) (treating physicians as hybrid witnesses; admissibility of standard-of-care testimony)
- Drew v. Lee, 250 P.3d 48 (Utah 2011) (unfair-surprise concerns; treating physician disclosure)
- Boatmen’s Natl. Bank v. Martin, 614 N.E.2d 1194 (Ill. 1993) (treating physician standard-of-care testimony may be admissible without full disclosure)
- Schreiber (California reference), 989 P.2d 726 (Cal. 1999) (approach to determining if treating physicians may opine on standard of care)