Barbara Ann Tudyman - Page 26

                                        - 26 -                                          
          testimony, and petitioner’s counsel used this opportunity                     
          effectively.  Permitting Lewis to testify as an expert did not                
          prejudice petitioner in any way.  Cf. Chagra v. Commissioner,                 
          T.C. Memo. 1991-366 (taxpayers' motion to strike expert testimony             
          was granted because taxpayers did not have access to the                      
          Commissioner's expert's conclusions and their underlying bases                
          before trial), affd. without published opinion 990 F.2d 1250 (2d              
          Cir. 1993).                                                                   
               Petitioner cites Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F.2d 784 (10th             
          Cir. 1980), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth                  
          Circuit concluded that the defendant had been prejudiced by                   
          expert testimony.  In Smith, the plaintiff failed to provide                  
          adequate advance information about proposed testimony of a                    
          medical expert witness, and the plaintiff elicited testimony from             
          the witness that was outside the scope of the plaintiff's                     
          description of his proposed testimony.  Defendant's counsel had               
          only 11 minutes to prepare for cross-examination of the expert                
          witness.  Id. at 791 n.3.  In contrast, as discussed above, long              
          before trial, petitioner’s expert and petitioner’s counsel were               
          thoroughly familiar with the items that we treated as Lewis’                  
          expert report, and petitioner was not prejudiced by the admission             
          of Lewis' expert testimony or expert report.                                  
                         ii. Lewis’ Conclusions                                         
               Lewis and Graham said that the foundation of petitioner's                
          house was structurally sound and could be repaired by injecting               

Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011