Reese v. Stanton, 2015 MT 293

In 2009 Reese was injured as a passenger in a van struck by a school bus owned by Harlow’s School Bus Service (HSBS); she later sued HSBS for medical expenses, lost wages, and loss of earning capacity.
Reese’s Workers’ Compensation matter produced reports: a Wellcare Independent Medical Panel (three doctors) and reports by Dr. Stratford (psychiatrist), vocational analyst Rod Wallette, and case manager Mary Jane Barrett concluding Reese could return to her pre-injury job.
Reese retained vocational expert Anne Arrington, who reviewed and relied on those reports and opined Reese could not return to her prior medium-duty job. HSBS’s medical expert Dr. Righetti opined no permanent injury and relied in part on the same reports.
Pretrial motions: Reese moved to exclude the non-testifying medical reports; the court denied that motion as to the reports but limited foundation to be laid at trial. HSBS moved to exclude Reese’s original billed medical charges; the court allowed only the reduced (paid) amounts.
At trial HSBS extensively cross-examined Arrington by reading from the reports; the Wellcare Panel report was later admitted over Reese’s objection. Portions of treating physician Dr. DuMontier’s video deposition were struck as undisclosed expert opinion. Jury returned a $59,500 verdict for Reese. Reese moved for a new trial and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of non-testifying doctors’ reports (Wellcare Panel)	Admission violated hearsay, authentication, and foundation rules; authors must testify.	Cross-examination of Arrington allowed probing the underlying facts and data she relied on; HSBS might also admit the reports.	Reversed: admission of the Wellcare Panel report as substantive evidence abused discretion because it converted underlying data into untested substantive evidence and affected Reese’s substantial rights.
Exclusion of original billed medical charges ($107,970.38)	Original bills are admissible to show reasonable value of medical services.	The amount actually accepted as payment ($92,486.16) is the proper measure of damages.	Reversed on this point: after Meek, original billed charges should be admissible on remand; HSBS may contest reasonableness.
Striking portions of Dr. DuMontier’s videotaped deposition	Review of additional pre-accident records did not change his causation opinion; exclusion was improper.	HSBS lacked notice that DuMontier would opine after reviewing additional records; unfair surprise impeded cross-examination.	Affirmed: court acted within discretion to exclude the portions as undisclosed expert opinion (only portions excluded; other testimony and report remained).

Jim’s Excavating Serv. v. HKM Assocs., 878 P.2d 248 (Mont. 1994) (Rule 705 permits probing the facts and data underlying expert opinion to expose weaknesses)
U.S. v. Wright, 783 F.2d 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (underlying data used to test expert reasoning may be elicited on cross-examination but is not admitted as substantive proof)
Polythane Sys. v. Marina Ventures Int’l, Ltd., 993 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1993) (courts should not admit hearsay opinion of an expert not subject to cross-examination)
Beehler v. Eastern Radiological Assocs., P.C., 289 P.3d 131 (Mont. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
Clark v. Bell, 220 P.3d 650 (Mont. 2009) (right to cross-examine opposing expert about bases of opinion is essential)
Meek v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 349 P.3d 493 (Mont. 2015) (original medical charges are admissible to establish reasonable value of medical services)