Higgins v. Koch Development Corp.

In action alleging that plaintiff sustained certain lung injuries after breathing chlorine gas at defendant’s amusement park, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding proposed testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician as causative expert, even though plaintiff established that said physician was board certified pulmonologist. Treating physicians are considered no differently than other experts for purposes of Rule 702, and fact that said physician had experience in treating and diagnosing lung conditions did not make her qualified for form opinion as to cause of plaintiff’s lung injuries, where: (1) there was no evidence that said physician had ever treated another patient for chlorine gas exposure or had any training in toxicology; and (2) record was silent as to whether physician had ruled in or out any other potential causes for plaintiff’s lung ailments. Record further showed that plaintiff had failed to timely give defendant summary of treating physician’s opinion as required under Rule 26.