This motion decision arose in the context of a LAT hearing relating to a catastrophic impairment determination. On the third day of the hearing during direct examination of one of the claimant’s expert witnesses, counsel for the insurer objected on the ground that the expert’s testimony was beyond the scope of her written report. The expert’s evidence in direct examination was contained in a rebuttal report, which had not been served on time and was not allowed to be admitted as hearing evidence. The insurer argued that the expert’s testimony should be limited to the expert’s original report. Adjudicator Paluch ruled that the probative value of the expert’s testimony would outweigh the prejudice suffered by the insurer and allowed the expert’s testimony relating to her updated rebuttal report as it was potentially relevant. Adjudicator Paluch also ruled that the insurer would be granted a brief adjournment for the purpose of preparing for cross examination, to prepare its expert to testify, and to call any additional witnesses required to address the claimant’s expert’s evidence.
Menu