Experts
Decision to Exclude Expert
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Estate of Hargett v. Brown, No. M2022-00250-COA-R3-CV, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 9, 2023).
“It is well-settled in Tennessee that ‘[t]he propriety, scope, manner, and control of the examination of witnesses is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, which will not be interfered with in the absence of an abuse thereof.” Brown v. Christian Bros. Univ., 428 S.W.3d 38, 47 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Coffee v. State, 188 Tenn. 1, 216 S.W.2d 702, 703 (1948)). Likewise, “a trial court’s decisions regarding the admissibility of expert evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Cannon, 642 S.W.3d 401, 437 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021) (citing State v. Schiefelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88, 130 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007); State v. Rhoden, 739 S.W.2d 6, 13 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987)), perm. app. denied (Jan. 14, 2022). As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained:
An abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision. A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010) (citations omitted)
Owens v. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, No. M2021-01273-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 18, 2023).
We review the trial court’s decision to disqualify Ms. Owens’s expert witness using the abuse-of-discretion standard. Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 307 (Tenn. 2020). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it disqualifies a witness who meets the competency requirements of [Tennessee Code Annotated] section 29-16-115(b).” Shipley v. Williams, 350 S.W.3d 527, 552 (Tenn. 2011).
Dowdy v. BNSF Railway Company, No. W2021-01003-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. April 19, 2023).
We review decisions to admit or exclude expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263 (Tenn. 1997). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employs reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” State v. Scott, 275 S.W.3d 395, 404-05 (Tenn. 2009).
Dunn v. Vucodinovich, No. E2021-00146-COA-R3-CV, p. 25 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023).
We recognize that questions regarding the admissibility and relevancy of expert testimony are left to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn. 1993). However, “a trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law.” State v. Deberry, 651 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tenn. 2022).
Jackson v. Thibault, No. E2021-00988-COA-R3-CV, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2022).
A trial court’s decision to exclude an expert is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Boyd v. BNSF Ry. Co., 596 S.W.3d 712, 724 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “Generally, questions pertaining to the qualifications, admissibility, relevancy, and competency of expert testimony are matters left to the trial court’s discretion. We may not overturn the trial court’s ruling admitting orexcludingexperttestimony unless the trial courtabuseditsdiscretion.” Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 273 (Tenn. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020) (quoting Harmon v. Hickman Cmty. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 594 S.W.3d 297, 305–06 (Tenn. 2020)).
TMS Contracting, LLC v. SmithGroup JJR, Inc., No. M2020-01028-COA-R3-CV, p. 9 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2022).
We will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude an expert witness absent an abuse of discretion. Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc., 229 S.W.3d 694, 708 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Gergel v. Gergel, No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV, p.13 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2022).
Likewise, a trial court’s decision to include or exclude an expert witness’s testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 275 (Tenn. 2005); Jernigan v. Paasche, 637 S.W.3d 746, 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). Furthermore, the “weight of the theories and the resolution of legitimate but competing expert opinions are matters entrusted to the trier of fact.” Brown, 181 S.W.3d at 275. “Expert testimony is not conclusive, even if uncontradicted, but is rather purely advisory in character, and the trier of fact may place whatever weight it chooses on such testimony.” Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145, 162 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Moreover, it is within the discretion of the trial judge to conclude that the opinion of certain experts should be accepted over that of other experts and that it contains the more probable explanation.” Hinson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 675, 676-77 (Tenn. 1983).
