As I was leaving Jeff City Thursday afternoon at 5 P.M. the Presidential Delegate caucuses were at 7P.M. in downtown KC and I was late. Needless to say after 4 days of being voted down with a grand finale of the speaker mocking us rudely on the final votes I was in quite a mood. A friend called me on my cell and asked me about a bill that was being voted on next week. Then he asked me "what kind of guy is the chairman of the committee where the bill is being voted on?" Perhaps you can imagine what I said. Wow. Didn't realize I could be so blunt about a fellow Rep. It may just be that I should turn my cell phone off for the drive home each week. Ah well, next year is looking better by the day so I should focus on that.

Here is link to HB 2241 that shows the language of the expert witness provisions.

Here is a link to the Judiciary Committee that shows who is on the Committee.

Here is a link to the Sponsor of the bill who is also the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee

Lawyer television advertising bill by Rep Stevenson.


Here is just a taste of the changes the Bill gives:

490.065. 1. [In any civil action,] The provisions of this section shall apply in all civil actions. The opinion of a witness qualified as an expert under this section may be given on the facts as proved by other witnesses. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing or trial. If such facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in a particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data do not have to be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that the probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect.

2. If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in any cause of action to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise[.] if:

(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data which are or will be admitted into evidence at the hearing or trial;

(2) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(3) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 2 of this section or any other provision of law to the contrary, in professional malpractice actions, the opinions of an expert who is otherwise qualified as to the acceptable standard of conduct of the professional whose conduct is at issue shall be admissible only if, at the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, such expert:

(1) Was licensed by an appropriate regulatory agency to practice his or her profession in the state in which such expert was practicing or teaching in the profession at such time; and

(2) In the case of a medical malpractice action:

(a) Had actual professional knowledge and experience in the area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is to be given as the result of having been regularly engaged in:

a. The active practice of such area of specialty of his or her profession for at least three of the last five years and with sufficient frequency to establish an appropriate level of knowledge, as determined by the court, in performing the procedure, diagnosing the condition, or rendering the treatment which is alleged to have been performed or rendered negligently by the defendant whose conduct is at issue; or

b. The teaching of his or her profession for at least three of the last five years as an employed member of the faculty of an educational institution accredited in the teaching of such profession and with sufficient frequency to establish an appropriate level of knowledge, as determined by the court, in teaching others how to perform the procedure, diagnose the condition, or render the treatment which is alleged to have been performed or rendered negligently by the defendant whose conduct is at issue; and

c. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subdivision:

(i) Is a member of the same profession;

(ii) Is a medical doctor testifying as to the standard of care of a defendant who is a doctor of osteopathy; or

(iii) Is a doctor of osteopathy testifying as to the standard of care of a defendant who is a medical doctor; and

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an expert who is a physician and as a result of having supervised, taught, or instructed nurses, nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, or medical support staff during at least three of the last five years immediately preceding the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred has knowledge of the standard of care of such health care provider under the circumstances at issue shall be competent to testify as to the standard of such health care provider. However, a nurse, nurse practitioner, certified registered nurse anesthetist, nurse midwife, physician assistant, physical therapist, occupational therapist, or medical support staff shall not be competent to testify as to the standard of care of a physician.

...

6. It is the intent of the general assembly that, in all civil cases, the courts of the state of Missouri not be viewed as open to expert evidence that would not be admissible in other states. Therefore, in interpreting and applying this section, the courts of this state may draw from the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579; General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136; Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137; and other cases in federal court applying the standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in such cases.

If you like this legislation you need do nothing. It is being pushed by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. On the other hand, if you disagree you may wish to contact your State Reps.