The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a doctor can rely on reports prepared by others and need not review X-rays and MRI films to give an opinion. In Crowe v. Marchand, 506 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) a qualified orthopedic surgeon rendered an opinion based on interpretive reports prepared by others of X-rays and an MRI. Plaintiff objected on the basis that the doctor lacked a sufficient foundation for his opinion for his testimony. The issue was whether the doctor, in forming his opinions, relied upon “sufficient facts or data” required by Federal Rules of Evidence 702.
In affirming the district court’s admission of the evidence, the Court noted that the plaintiff did not allege that the X-ray and MRI reports were inaccurate and that the doctor had testified that orthopedists customarily form opinions based on medical reports rather than seeking to independently verify the underlying primary evidence. The court pointed out that Federal Rule of Evidence 703 specifically authorizes experts to rely on materials completed by others as long as they are “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field.” The Court then said:
“This result is well within the mainstream of acceptable trial practice. Objections of this type, which question the factual underpinnings of an expert’s investigation, often go to the weight of the proffered testimony, not to its admissibility. See id. At 81; Int’l Adhesive Coatings Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988). As such, these matters are for the jury, not for the court. This is as it should be; the district court’s gatekeeping function ought not to be confused with the jury’s responsibility to separate wheat from chaff (p. 18).”