Section 13.7 Identifying an Expert in Response to Interrogatories

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

D. (§13.7) Identifying an Expert in Response to Interrogatories

An expert witness who is expected to testify must be identified in response to interrogatories directed at determining the identity and opinions of the expert. Failure to identify the expert may result in the expert being excluded at trial. Wilkerson v. Prelutsky, 943 S.W.2d 643, 648–49 (Mo. banc 1997) (upholding a decision to prevent a nonidentified medical expert from providing testimony on causation). See generally State ex rel. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Pully, 737 S.W.2d 241, 245–46 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987) (experts disclosed four days before trial were stricken); Legg v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 18 S.W.3d 379, 386–87 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (striking experts whose disclosure 19 days before trial was untimely).

Failure to identify a treating physician in response to an interrogatory regarding experts does not merit exclusion. “The treating physician is first and foremost a fact witness, as opposed to an expert witness.” Kehr v. Knapp, 136 S.W.3d 118, 123 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (quoting Brandt v. Med. Defense Assocs., 856 S.W.2d 667, 673 (Mo. banc 1993)).

But while treating physicians may testify as to medical matters without being identified as experts, they must still be identified as fact witnesses. Wilkerson, 943 S.W.2d at 649. “Fact witnesses to...