The purpose of expert testimony restrictions is ensure the integrity and reliability of the testimony being heard by the jury. In the context of personal injury cases, experts for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant provide complex medical testimony as to whether the Plaintiff was or was not permanently injured as a result of the subject-incident. An issue that often arises is whether the expert can testify regarding the Plaintiff's MRI results when the expert read the MRI report of the reading radiologist but did not personally review the Plaintiff's MRI films. At trial, the MRI report of the radiologist is considered hearsay. It contains an out of court statement offered for its truth by another witness. In order for an expert to tell the jury the results of Plaintiff's MRI, the MRI report must fall within a hearsay exception. Generally the exception is the business record exception or Rule 703 which allows experts to rely on hearsay in formulating their opinions. However, case law has also established that a testifying expert cannot simply bootstrap the hearsay opinions of other non-testifying experts into court. The practical effect? Now the attorney must call the non-testifying physician as a witness at trial. Typically this would be the radiologist who interpreted Plaintiff's films. 
    However, in everyday medical practice, doctors throughout the United States regularly rely on the report of the radiologist in diagnosing the patient. Although this occurs in medical practice on a daily basis, in Court the result is different. Treating doctors are forbidden from telling the jury the results of the MRI report. 
    As a result, it can be argued that expert testimony restrictions are too limiting in that they fail to reflect the reality of medical practice. On the other hand, it can be argued that expert testimony restrictions prevent jurors from being misled by inaccurate and unreliable information. The answer? Careful balancing the two. Expert testimony should accurately reflect and be consistent with everyday medical practice while still maintaining their purpose of reliability. The duality of expert testimony restrictions will continue to be an issue in every trial moving forward but the Court system must recognize that restrictions can go too far if not properly regulated to reflect reality