Evidence Rule 702 does not require that an individual have received formal education in a certain field before that person may be considered an expert, and we will not read such requirement into the rule.  Instead, Evidence Rule 702 acknowledges that one may acquire the requisite knowledge through means other than formal education.  From the information available to this court, we see that Puchalski has spent fourteen years as a construction safety supervisor for the Illinois Toll Authority, worked four years as a consulting safety engineer, owned his own construction safety consulting business, and investigated jobsite accidents.  This information is sufficient to permit the reasonable conclusion that Puchalski is an expert in worksite safety issues and accident investigation.
The Indiana Supreme Court allowed a nurse to testify that an Alzheimer's patient was incompetent in Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659, 669 (Ind. 2000).  The Court held in that case that:
Ayers's affidavit states that she is a licensed practical nurse, which presumes that she received the medical training necessary to obtain that license.  The affidavit also verifies that Ayres had worked for the nursing home for nine years at the time Creasy was injured B the entire time Rusk had lived there.  Ayers's certification, associated training, practical experience gained through working for the nursing home for nine years, and three years of working with Rusk qualified her as an expert for purposes of assessing Rusk's mental state and rendering an opinion.
When does expert testimony become "scientific"?

Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b) requires the court to ensure that the principles upon which the expert bases his opinion is reliable if the testimony is "scientific".  Unfortunately, the rule does not address when the testimony is "scientific" and when it is merely technical or some other form of specialized knowledge.  Justice Breyer in Kumho recognized this difficulty in differentiating between scientific testimony and other forms of expert testimony.  He wrote in Kumho that:
It would prove difficult, if not impossible, for judges to administer evidentiary rules under which a gatekeeping obligation depended upon a distinction between "scientific" knowledge and "technical" or "other specialized" knowledge.  There is no clear line that divides the one from the others.  Disciplines such as engineering rest upon scientific knowledge.  Pure scientific theory itself may depend for its development upon observation and properly engineered machines.  And conceptual efforts to distinguish the two are unlikely to produce clear legal lines capable of application in particular cases.
Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1174.
A Court of Appeals decision, Lytle v. Ford Motor Company, 814 N.E.2d 301, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), illustrates the difficulty in determining what is "scientific" for purposes of Rule 702(b) and what is not. The Lytle case involved a catastrophic injury caused when the plaintiff was thrown from a 1987 Ford Ranger pick-up truck.  The evidence assumed by the trial court was that the plaintiff was wearing her seat belt prior to the collision.  After the collision, the plaintiff was found outside the pick-up truck.  The plaintiff presented two experts with extensive backgrounds in automotive engineering. 

Lytle's first expert, Thomas Horton, had several years of experience, in industry, designing and testing seat belts systems.  Horton's opinions were based upon "(1) his examination of the vehicle and seatbelt assemblies, including the placement and photograph of two people in an exemplar vehicle in 2003, and (2) his uninstrumented hand manipulations of two exemplar assemblies, unattached to any vehicle, and without passenger load or any web tension whatsoever."  Id at 313.  The court noted that Horton could not replicate the forces that were involved in the roll over and that he Ahad performed no testing to support his theory that a longer center buckle stalk was a safer alternative design, and he had not done any testing and had no support for his opinion that the other buckle was a safer alternative design.@  Id.  As such, the court held that:
In light of such a significant analytical gap between Horton's data and his conclusions, his testimony was unreliable as a matter of law, and we must conclude that the trial court properly excluded his testimony.
Id.
Lytle's other expert, Dr. Khadilkar, was a Ph.D. in automotive engineering who performed testing for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).  Dr. Khadilkar's "testimony regarding inadvertent unlatch was based primarily on observation and analysis of the geometry of the restraint system and its alternatives."  Id.  The court held that:

Dr. Khadilkar never documented the amount of depression that was necessary to release the seatbelt buckle in the accident. . . . [He] did not perform any research, and did not identify any literature in support of his theory. . . . Dr. Khadilkar engaged in less than ten minutes of "testing" to reach his opinion: he placed a buckle against a table in his office and "eyeballed" the depression necessary to release the latchplate. . . . [He] made [no] effort to measure the force, web tension, direction or rotation that would occur in this type of accident. . . . [He failed to show] that the seatbelt assemblies moved toward one another, moved with any particular force or load, twisted into position, or that any other object contacted the passenger's button at all. . . [nor showed the] sufficient force, direction, duration, rotation, and load conditions to release the buckle.  As with Horton's testimony, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court properly excluded Dr. Khadilkar's testimony.
Id. at 314.
The plaintiff in Lytle argued that her experts' opinion that the seat belt was defective was based upon her experts' skilled observations, common sense, knowledge and experience and did not require a determination of reliability because the testimony was not Ascientific@.  Lytle relied on Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1084 (Ind. 2003), and PSI Energy, Inc. v. Home Insur. Co., 801 N.E.2d 705, 740-41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), for the assertion that plaintiff's experts were not giving "scientific" testimony.
In Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1085-86 (Ind. 2003), the court held that:

The evidence before us does not appear to be a matter of "scientific principles" governed by Evidence Rule 702(b).  Rather, it is more a "matter of the observations of persons with specialized knowledge" than "a matter of scientific principles' governed by Indiana Evidence Rule 702(b)," . . . As a four-year veteran forensic pathologist, Dr Prahlow was qualified to make such observations.  Doctors often testify about the injuries depicted in photographs even though they were not present when the pictures were taken and did not personally examine the injuries depicted. . . . Dr. Prahlow's testimony regarding Lori's state falls into the area of specialized knowledge of anatomy and physiology.  Such area of specialized knowledge was within the scope of expertise and beyond the knowledge generally held by lay observers.  Prahlow's expertise in examining and evaluating wound, such as those depicted in the photos, was undoubtedly an aid to the jury.
In PSI Energy, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 801 N.E.2d 705, 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), the court found that:
It is clear from the record before us that Helfrich has extensive experience in investigation and remediation of MGP subsurface structures and contamination.  While Helfrich did apply scientific principles in forming his theory, the concepts he relied upon, such as vibrations from a passing train, are relatively simple and within the knowledge of a common layperson.  Consequently, we agree with PSI that Helfrich's theory is reliably based on his observations and application of his specialized knowledge to those observations.  Moreover, it is important to note that Helfrich's theory will be subject to cross-examination at trial. . . . Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Insures' motion to strike the testimony of Thomas Helfrich.

The court in Lytle, however, distinguished the Malinski and PSI cases.  The court found that the experts' opinions in both Malinski and PSI "were rooted in observations of physical evidence such as a shoe print, bondage photographs, a cell under a microscope, a bullet wound, or a crack in concrete."  814 N.E.2d at 313.  In the Lytle case, the court held that Lytle's experts had a hypothesis of "how some extremely complex physical event might have occurred," which Malinski and PSI did not have.  Id. at 310.  The court also held that this case was more like the Messer v. Cerestar USA, Inc., 803 N.E.2d 1240, 1244-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), case.
In Messer, an expert's testimony concerning the failure of a safety gate under Rule 702(b)was barred.  The gate was designed to be removed by lifting it upward and out of a U-shaped bracket.  Messer leaned over the gate and the gate gave way with him.  Messer's expert concluded that the gate failed "because it was unable to withstand two-hundred pounds of pressure and remain fixed in place."  Id. at 1248.  The court held that the expert did not take Aany measurements, perform any analysis, or even view the gate and accident scene@ and that he "did not reveal what scientific method or principles were used to arrive at the conclusion that the gate was defective" as required by Rule 702(b).  Id. at 1247-48.  As a result, his "opinion is unsupported speculation or subjective belief. . . and the affidavit should not have been admitted."  Id. at 1248.  The court did not discuss what made the expert's testimony "scientific".  Id.  The defendant in the case did allege that the plaintiff's expert based his opinion on "physics, mechanics, and/or ergonomics of how the force of [Greg]'s body affected Cerestar's gate."  Id.
Applying Messer, the Lytle court found that Lytle's experts were giving "scientific" testimony and that the testimony did not meet the reliability test in Rule 702(b). 
B.  Preliminary Questions.
Before an expert is selected, the following analysis should be conducted:

1.  What information must be communicated to the jury that is not within their common knowledge or understanding?
2.  What is the most efficient and understandable way to demonstrate knowledge to the jury?
3.  What foundation must be laid for admissibility of the opinion?
4.  Has the expert conducted a differential diagnosis?  In turn, can the witness rule out other causes; symptoms; or, complaints for the alleged condition.
5.  Is the opinion based on the expert's knowledge, skill, experience and training?
6.  Is the opinion reliable, verifiable or subject to scientific proof?
7.  Has the expert witness testified previously?  If so, collect all depositions and reports.  Review the depositions and reports and speak with the attorney(s) that previously retained the expert.
8.  Has the witness ever been disqualified?
9.  What type of practice does the expert have?  i.e.  Academic, Clinic, Research, Professional Witness.
10.  Does the expert consult or testify for Plaintiff and Defendant?
11.  Has the expert been involved in past litigation, either as a Plaintiff or a Defendant?
12.  Do you like the witness?  i.e.  Communication, appearance, cordiality, defensive, posture, etc.  
C.        Jurisdictional Knowledge.
1.         Know the law of your jurisdiction.  Does the jurisdiction follow the federal standard or does it have its own standard?

2.         Select your forum carefully.  Remember that the trial judge has a lot of discretion and typically his decision on the admissibility of an expert's opinion will only be reversed for an abuse of discretion. 
D.        Selection of the Expert.
1.         Does the expert have the appropriate qualifications?
2.         Has the expert's opinion been previously stricken by a trial court?  This question will typically be asked by defense counsel and if the answer is "yes", beware!  Consider Schepise v. Saturn Corp., 1997 WL 897676 at 16 (D.N.J. 1997), wherein the district court held that it "need go no further than [the case of ] Rutigliano were the same experts' opinions regarding formaldehyde sensitization caused by carbonless copy paper were challenged and subsequently barred by Judge Liflend."
3.         Will the expert work with you in learning the facts of your case so that he can develop the necessary factual foundation for admissible expert opinion? 
4.         What methods and principles will the expert use, and why should they be accepted as reliable by the trial court?  If the expert you are considering to hire cannot answer this question, you need to start looking for another expert.

5.         Will the expert prepare a detailed report of his opinions after enough information has been gathered to do so, and, will the report set out the methods and principles used and indicate why they are reliable?  The expert's report must comply with FRE 26 in federal court.  Further, a report that provides a factual basis for the opinion, and sets out the reliability of the methods and/or principles utilized to reach the opinion, may preclude a challenge to its admissibility.  The Daubert challenge of an expert can turn into a mini-trial and cost thousands of dollars in case preparation expenses.
6.         Will the expert use the same methods/principles in this case that they would use in  a non-litigation setting?  This is one test that Kumho suggests should always be considered by the trial judge in federal court.
E.        After the Expert is Retained.
1.         Provide the expert with the facts of the case.  When you send the expert depositions,  accident reports, photographs, and other data, document in an attachment to the cover letter what you have sent.  Update this list of data each time you send something new to the expert.  Then when your expert is asked at his/her deposition the materials that were reviewed in order to reach an opinion, the expert will have a ready list which should facilitate establishing  the required factual basis for the opinion.
2.         Prepare the expert carefully for his deposition.  In particular, make sure that the expert can give an intelligent answer to this question: "Would you explain the methods and/or principles you utilized in reaching your opinion(s) in this case?"

3.         Be ready to do your own research to find peer-review articles, national standards, and other information necessary to establish the reliability of the methods and principles used by your expert.  At times, experts do not meet the expectations you have of them when you hire them, and have to be assisted.  In addition, the more you know about the methods and principles utilized by your expert, the better judge you will become in evaluating the reliability of your expert's opinion. 
4.         Determine if your opponent can help establish the reliability of your expert's opinion.   Find out in discovery if the defense expert utilizes the same principles and methods relied upon by your expert.  If there is an in-house expert, determine if the defendant corporation uses the same methods and principles as your expert.
F.  What is Discoverable and Who Pays?  The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.
1.  Scope of Discovery - In General.
The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure provide the scope of discovery as follows:
(1) In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject-matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (IRTP, 26(B)(1)).
2.  Testifying Expert Witness.

There are certain provisions of the Indiana Rules of Trial procedure concerning discovery of expert witnesses and their opinions.  The distinction is made between expert witnesses that are retained in anticipation of litigation or trial. 
The Rules provide that the identity of such expert witnesses and their opinions are discoverable as follows:
 (4) Trial Preparation: Experts. Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subdivision (B)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained as follows:
(a) (i) A party may through interrogatories require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
(ii) Upon motion, the court may order further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and such provisions, pursuant to subdivision (B)(4)(c) of this rule, concerning fees and expenses as the court may deem appropriate.
3.  Consulting Expert Witness.
An expert witness that has not been formally retained in anticipation of trial is known as a consulting witness.  Such a consulting witness, and the witness opinions, are generally not discoverable.  The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure provide as follows:

(b) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only as provided in Rule 35(B) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
The identity and opinions of a consulting non-medical expert witness are discoverable only upon the following showing:
a.         The showing of exceptional circumstances;
b.         Under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery; and,
c.         To obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.

However, the identity of a consulting medical expert is discoverable pursuant to Trial Rule 35(B) as a Report of a Licensed or Certified Examiner (commonly known as an Independent or Defense Medical Examination:
(B) Report of licensed or certified examiner.

(1) If requested by the party against whom an order is made under Rule 35(A) or the person examined, the party causing the examination to be made shall deliver to him a copy of a detailed written report of the examiner setting out his findings, including results of all tests made, diagnoses and conclusions, together with like reports of all earlier examinations of the same condition. After delivery the party causing the examination shall be entitled upon request to receive from the party against whom the order is made a like report of any examination, previously or thereafter made, of the same condition, unless, in the case of a report of examination of a person not a party, the party shows that he is unable to obtain it. The court on motion may make an order against a party requiring delivery of a report on such terms as are just, and if an examiner fails or refuses to make a report the court may exclude his testimony if offered at the trial.
(2) By requesting and obtaining a report of the examination so ordered or by taking the deposition of the examiner, the party examined waives any privilege he may have in that action or any other involving the same controversy, regarding the testimony of every other person who has examined or may thereafter examine him in respect of the same mental or physical condition.
(3) This subdivision applies to examinations made by agreement of the parties, unless the agreement expressly provides otherwise. This subdivision does not preclude discovery of a report of an examiner or the taking of a deposition of the examiner in accordance with the provisions of any other rule.
4. Who Pays the Expert's Bill?
General guidance in the payment of fees and expenses with respect to the disclosure of an expert witness opinions is provided in the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.  Absent a showing of manifest injustice, the party seeking discovery shall pay the reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery.  The Rule provides as follows:
(c) Unless manifest injustice would result,
(i) the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivision (B)(4)(a)(ii) and (B)(4)(b) of this rule; and

(ii) with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (B)(4)(a)(ii) of this rule the court may require, and with respect to discovery obtained under subdivision (B)(4)(b) of this rule the court shall require, the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.
G.  What Materials should you Provide to the Expert Witness?
As set forth above, any information provided to an expert witness is discoverable.  Such information may include notes generated from telephone calls or file reviews; e-mail; case summary; depositions; articles; and, attorney retention letters.  An expert should be provided all materials necessary to lay a proper foundation for the expert opinion in a form that is admissible.  Information that should not be provided to an expert witness includes confidential attorney client materials; attorney opinions as to the strength and weaknesses of the case; or, any information suggesting that the expert has an interest in the outcome of the case.
At the outset of retention of an expert witness, an engagement letter should be provided.  The engagement letter should be used whenever an expert is retained.  Typically, the expert will provide a contract or engagement letter of their own as well as a fee schedule.  Such engagement letter specifies the experts role; billing schedule; and, other issues that are necessary for a compatible and productive relationship.  Such topics to be included in an expert engagement letter are set forth below:
Dear Expert:

This letter will confirm that our office has retained you as a consulting expert only on the above captioned case.  Enclosed with this letter is the retainer for your services and the following materials related to this case:
{herein insert detailed list of what is being sent: document, number of pages, dates, etc.}
In order to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of what our office expects from you by way of your professional services I would request that you comply with the following directives in your work on this case:
A.        Preserve all written or computer generated material that you compile in your work on this case;
B.        Keep all information in your file and all information that you obtain from my office or from any other source confidential as such information is to be used solely for the benefit of my client.
C.        You agree to not consult with anyone who has any interest adverse to my client in this case
D.        You agree to keep the fact of this consultation confidential
E.        You agree not to prepare any reports or drafts of reports without first obtaining approval from myself or another attorney from my office.
F.         You agree to return all materials of whatever nature that you compile in this consultation to my office at the end of this engagement.
G.        You agree to utilize the methodologies and procedures considered to be reliable in your field of expertise in your work on this case.
H.  How Will Experts Report Their Findings?
After an expert has reviewed the case, collected all information and formed an admissible opinion, the same will be shared with counsel in the following forms:

A.  Telephone conversation.
B.  Written report.
C.  Discovery responses.
D.  Deposition.
Such disclosure may also include anatomical models, graphs, medical summary, medical illustration or other demonstrative aids. 
Before any written report is issued, the following checklist may be used to lay a proper foundation for admissibility of the same:
1.         First report should state:  "Preliminary, based on incomplete information and subject to change."
2.         Should cover as many Daubert keys as possible:  general acceptance of methods and procedures used; is result testable?; error concept applicable to opinions; based on peer review articles if applicable and ATTACH ALL SUCH ARTICLES RELIED UPON BY THE EXPERT.
3.         Report should cover all opinions
4.         Expert understands his/her right and duty to supplement the report when opinions in the report change
5.         Attached all applicable learned treatises to the final report that expert considers authoritative re the opinions expressed in the report; these can be read to the jury on direct and the opposing expert can be cross-examined about these sources.
I.  Preparing the Expert Witness.
1.  Depositions.

An expert, like any other witness, must be thoroughly prepared prior to deposition.  Such preparation includes such obvious requirements as being familiar with the medical records; medical literature; testing (procedures and results); diagnostic studies (procedure, technology, interpretation); relevant treating physician or patient testimony; prior medical records or issues; differential diagnosis; and, the skill, expertise, qualifications and training that allows an expert to provide an opinion on an ultimate fact at issue. 
Most physicians are not professional testifiers, meaning that their income is limited only to testifying in cases involving litigation.  As a result, the basic deposition ground rules are necessary: only answer what has been asked; answer what is understood; do not argue; provide an answer that a layperson could understand; do not conjecture or speculate; give up points where necessary that do not affect ultimate opinion; do not disparage another practitioner or their treatment; give the benefit of the doubt (where necessary); the role of medicine is to help people get better, and, at times is an inexact science.
2.  Cross and Direct Examination Techniques.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that juries learn by way of audio, visual and tactile clues.  In today's electronic environment, most individuals have a computer, a mobile phone and cable television.  As a result, the attention span of an average juror may be limited. i.e.  The "Clicker Generation".  Thus, it is important to make any direct or cross examination, interesting, brief, easily understood and to the point.  Counsel should avoid complex narrative description.  Rather, if the issue involves a test measuring the range of motion of a patients spine, a demonstration or model may be used to satisfy the audio and visual tactile clues.  If the issue is the movement of a brain within a skull causing a traumatic brain injury, pass a model of the skull to the jury so that they satisfy their visual and tactile cues by touching the rough spikes on the inside of the skull that caused injury.
A useful line of questioning on re-direct examination may include the following:
Q.  Doctor, having heard the questions asked by Attorney Jones, have your opinions changed in any manner.
Q.  Is it still your opinion, based upon your skill, education, experience and training, as well as seeing thousands of patients,  that Mr. Smith suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of the May 15, 2005 car crash.
Q   Is it your opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Mr. Smith's brain injury is permanent.
Q.  Is it your opinion, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Mr. Smith's confusion, dizziness and mood swings are permanent symptoms of his brain injury. 
3.  How to Use a Videotaped Deposition During Trial.

An attorney must make a decision whether to call the expert witness live at trial.  Such a decision may include the weighing of factors including the costs associated; the attitude of the witness being forced to testify live as opposed to voluntarily appearance; the uncertainty of when the witness will be called; the necessity of the jury to visually see the witness testify in response to questions; whether any issues occurred at trial which were not covered in the video deposition; and, the witnesses schedule and or patient load.  After weighing such issues, a video deposition may be the best alternative to live testimony.
If a video deposition for use at trial is the best alternative, the attorney taking the deposition must be as prepared for the deposition as the attorney would be at trial.  Typically, a discovery deposition is taken before the video or trial testimony.  Before either deposition is taken, it is imperative that the attorney taking the deposition meet with the doctor prior to the deposition to solidify the physicians opinions.  At the meeting, it is important to have all questions prepared and exhibits (as well as demonstrative evidence) ready for admission.
Prior to the video testimony, it is suggested that the parties attempt to stipulate to the admission of certain exhibits; medical records; medical bills; diagnostic studies; and, medical illustrations.  During the trial deposition, have the expert demonstrate, by way of anatomical models, surgical hardware, diagnostic studies, the injuries, surgery, etc.  Such stipulations may be informal; reduced to writing; or, obtained by way of request for admissions.  Such agreements will reduce or eliminate objections or other testimony that may require the videotape to be redacted prior to showing to the jury.
At trial, the video deposition is played as if the witness is present in the courtroom.  An attorney may announce that the next witness is "Dr. Jones, who will testify on behalf of the Plaintiff in lieu of the witnesses live testimony."  If any exhibits are introduced at the video deposition, it is necessary to move the same into admission in live court.  Be certain to prepare an exhibit binder or have copies available to publish the same to the jury.  Also, publish a copy (or the original) of the deposition.  Be certain that the tape (or other media) does not have a defect which would prevent its dissemination to the jury.

A sample testimony outline, for purpose of video testimony is provided below:
                                      DOCTOR VIDEO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
I.          Name
Medical Doctor
Location of Practice
- Office
- Where on staff
Education
- Experience, education, training and qualifications to provide medical servcies to patients.
- College (Major)
- Medical School
- Specialty
- Internship
- Residency
- Other training
License
- State Issued
- How long
- Other states
- Maintained licensing
Area of Practice
- Specialty

- Standards
- # Patients treated in career
- Due to busy patient load, unable to testify live at trial.
- Examinations
Certifications
Professional Associations
II.         Patient
- How many occasions did you see the patient?
- Referred by
- What specialty is            
- Why was the patient referred?
- Complaints
First office Visit
- Date
- Obtain History

- Age
- Complaints
- What other information
- Conduct Physical Exam
- What tests
- How work Results conclusion
- Results

- Conclusion
- Based on history and exam, what inquiries did                       at that time.
What is
- Injury
Exhibit 1 - Medical Records
- Obtained from your office
- Please identify
- What are they
- Patient
- Whose handwriting
- Personal knowledge of facts contained herein
- Documents generated and kept in normal, ordinary course of business
- Go through records,
- What procedure; how Performed; expected result
- Where was procedure performed
- Example 2 - Hospital
- Example 3 - Registration
- On Staff where
- How long
- Why performed; how long is procedure
- Familiar with record keeping
            - Handwriting
- Normal custom to make notes during procedure

- Are these your notes
E.  A Roadmap for Proving Non-Economic Damages
1.  Lay Witness
Lay witness testimony is truly an art.  The importance of lay witness testimony in proving damages is recognized by trial lawyers, but is a subject that has not been adequately developed in many cases.  Often lawyers or their staff meet with the lay witness briefly, or talk with the lay witness over the phone, asking them about before and after observations and changes in the plaintiff.
The effectiveness of the lay witnesses' testimony will largely depend on how effective (not the same as articulate) the lay witness is in conveying what can often be boring facts (e.g., "Before the collision, Shirley used to garden four hours a day all summer; since the accident, she only gardens maybe once a week.").
Effective lay witness testimony should be moving, and tell you something about the person which is interesting and compelling.  Simple anecdotes are best for this purpose.
The most compelling lay witnesses are typically those individuals with significant pre and post contact with the client.  This may include:
Teacher/Coach/Professor
Colleague/Boss
Longtime Friend
Social/Vocational/Service Club Members
Spiritual Adviser
Neighbor

Hairdresser
Financial Planner
2. Physiatrist and/or Consulting Physician
In a catastrophic injury case, there may be dozens of physicians that treated the client.  It would be impractical, expensive and boring to produce all such witnesses at trial.  Typically, catastrophically injured clients will be treated or followed by a physical medicine physician.  These medical professionals review the entire medical records to ascertain the clients' injuries, treatments, prognosis and potential for rehabilitation.  If a physical medicine doctor is not participating in the client care, an Aindependent physician@ may be retained to follow the client's progress and perform the same file review.  Either way, a physical medicine or consulting physician may be an economical, expedient and interesting witness to discuss the client's injuries, treatment and progress at trial.
3.  Vocational Rehabilitation Expert
Traditionally, a vocational expert will testify as to the type of impairments that a client may have, restricting the type of employment (or lack of employability) in a particular case.  At trial, a vocational expert will be able to demonstrate the types of tests performed; skills required (past and potential employment); and the limitations possessed by the client.  If possible, the vocational expert may be able to assist the client in retraining and steering the client to possible employment.  Again, this information will demonstrate the type of character possessed by the client, in trying to return to the workforce, but in a lower paying or diminished capacity.
4.  Request for Admissions

The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, Rule 36, provide that a party may serve a written request for the admission of the truth of any matter, including the genuineness of documents. If answered affirmatively (or denied within thirty days) the subject request is conclusively admitted for all purposes at trial.  Trial Rule 36 is an invaluable means to narrow issues, reduces evidentiary hurdles and expedites the presentation of evidence at trial.  Request for admissions may be used for such issues as:
Medical Records
Medical Bills
Photographs
Reports
Exhibits
Medical Illustrations
If a party denies the subject request, and the same is proved at trial, the party that proved the same may be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and expenses. 
5.  Demonstrative Aids
Each demonstrative used, whether by you or by your expert, should move your case along, and reinforce your case theme and the underlying theories of liability.   It is undisputed that jurors learn better and retain more information when it is communicated verbally and visually.  Such demonstrative aids should be professionally prepared with the assistance of a jury or trial consultant, expert and / or witness tendering the same.  Each demonstrative aid should be appealing to the eye, interesting and communicate a fundamental fact or issue.
Frequently used demonstrative aids include: