3 New Opinion V Logical Corollary

• Library: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f) & (g) - Quick Reference Guide (2011 Ed.)

3. New Opinion v Logical Corollary

Argument:

"The trial testimony is an elaboration of the testimony that was disclosed in discovery. Therefore, it was properly disclosed."

Response:

1. An elaboration on, or a logical corollary to, the originally revealed opinion is permissible under Rule 213. Brax v Kennedy, 363 Ill App 3d 343, 841 NE2d 137, 298 Ill Dec 994 (1st D 2005).

2. A witness may elaborate on a disclosed opinion as long as the testimony states logical corollaries to the opinion rather than new reasons for it. Cetera v DiFilippo, 404 Ill App 3d 20, 934 NE2d 506, 343 Ill Dec 182 (1st D 2010).

3. Witnesses are allowed to elaborate or give logical corollaries to Rule 213 disclosures. Testimony at trial must be encompassed by the original opinion. Spaetzel v Dillon, 393 Ill App 3d 806, 914 NE2d 543, 333 Ill Dec 113 (1st D 2009)

4. When the substance of an expert's opinion remains consistent between their disclosure in discovery and their testimony at trial, there is no violation of Rule 213. Johnson v Johnson, 386 Ill App 3d 522, 898 NE2d 145, 325 Ill Dec 412 (1st D 2008)

5. While a witness is not required to use the exact words previously used in a discovery deposition, where the words have a different meaning, a violation of Rule 213 can occur. (Doctor's trial testimony that the plaintiff's decedent should have been "assessed" every shift was not within the scope of his deposition testimony where he testified that "the decedent's vital signs should have been taken three times per day.") Prairie v Snow Valley Health, 324 Ill App 3d 568, 755 NE2d 1021, 258 Ill Dec 202 (2d D 2001).

6. While it is improper for a trial court to allow previously undisclosed opinions that advance a new negligence theory, an opinion is not new merely because it refers to a more precise time than given in the expert's Rule 213 disclosure. It does not logically follow, however, that an opinion as to a precise time is never a new opinion. Lopez v Northwestern Memorial Hosp, 375 Ill App 3d 637, 873 NE2d 420, 313 Ill Dec 796 (1st D 2007)

7. Opinion witness who did not testify to certain opinions in his discovery deposition was barred from testifying to those opinions at trial. It is not enough that the general topic was touched upon during a deposition or that the undisclosed opinion would be "a natural corollary" to the disclosed opinion. Each specific opinion must be disclosed. Firstar Bank of Illinois v Peirce, 306 Ill App 3d 525, 714 NE2d 116, 239 Ill Dec 558 (1st D 1999).

8. Opinion witness who did not testify to certain opinions during his discovery deposition was barred from testifying to those opinions at trial. It is not enough that the "same basic subject matter" was touched upon during the deposition. Each specific opinion must be disclosed. McMath v Katholi, 304 Ill App 3d 369, 711 NE2d 1135, 238 Ill Dec 474 (4th D 1999), revd on other grounds, 191 Ill 2d 251, 730 NE2d 1, 246 Ill Dec 321 (2000).

9. Answer to Rule 213 interrogatories which did not disclose that expert doctor would testify that defendant deviated from the standard of care barred expert from testifying to that opinion at trial. It is not enough that the expert's trial testimony "stated the obvious" or was an "obvious inference" to be drawn from another witnesses testimony. Parker v Illinois Masonic, 299 Ill App 3d 495, 701 NE2d 190, 233 Ill Dec 547 (1st D 1998).

10. When testimony describes the same opinion using different words, there is no Rule 213...