- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011