Substitute Expert, Motion to

Blackburn v. McLean, No. M2021-00417-COA-R3-CV, p. 11 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2022). 

The trial court’s decision here, which concerned the Plaintiff’s efforts to secure a new expert after the deadline set in the scheduling order, is subject to review for an abuse of discretion. Discretion itself denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule. When invoked as a guide for judicial action, it requires that the trial court view the factual circumstances in light of the relevant legal principles and exercise considered discretion before reaching a conclusion. Discretion should not be arbitrarily exercised. The applicable facts and law must be given due consideration. Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541, 51 S.Ct. 243, 247, 75 L.Ed. 520, 526 (1931). An appellate court should not reverse for “abuse of discretion” a discretionary judgment of a trial court unless it affirmatively appears that the trial court’s decision was against logic or reasoning, and caused an injustice or injury to the party complaining. Douglas v. Estate of Robertson, 876 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Tenn.1994); Foster v. Amcon Intern., 621 S.W.2d 142, 145 (Tenn.1981).