05-08-00253-CV
File: 080253F - From documents transmitted: 02/23/2009
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed February 23, 2009.


In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-00253-CV
............................
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ARMSTRONG, III, Appellant
V.
CHRISTOPHER MCLOUGHLIN, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 05-10916-E
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Moseley
   Benjamin Franklin Armstrong, III sued Christopher McLoughlin for injuries he suffered in an automobile
accident. The jury found McLoughlin was responsible for the accident and that Armstrong sustained total
damages of $2,000, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. Nevertheless, Armstrong filed a
motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Armstrong appeals. The background of the case and the
evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because
all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4.
We affirm
   In his first issue, Armstrong argues the trial court erred by allowing McLoughlin's expert, Dr. Leighton
Parker, to testify about MRI scans of Armstrong's back because he was not shown to be qualified to do so.
When Parker, a neurosurgeon, was first asked about the scans, Armstrong successfully objected that
Parker had not been shown to be qualified to give expert testimony about such scans. Parker then testified
he had been trained to read and interpret MRI scans from the time they became available in the mid-1980s
and that he reads them as part of his daily medical practice.         We overrule Armstrong's first issue. The
record does not show Armstrong made a timely complaint after the trial court sustained his initial objection
and Parker testified as to his expertise in reading MRI scans. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Further, given
Parker's subsequent testimony, even if Armstrong had timely reasserted his objection we cannot say the
trial court abused its discretion by admitting Parker's testimony. See Roberts v. Williamson, 111 S.W.3d
113, 122 (Tex. 2003) (board-certified pediatrician had sufficient experience and expertise regarding causes
and effects of patient's injuries to qualify as expert regarding neurological injuries); McIntyre v. Smith, 24 S.
W.3d 911, 915 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000, pet. denied) (“It is clear from the record that the subject at
issue is equally developed in many fields of medicine, and thus, those practitioners who perform these
medical techniques are qualified to give the standard of care that would apply to Smith's actions in this
case.”).
   In his second issue, Armstrong asserts the trial court erred by not allowing him to further cross-examine
Parker after McLoughlin's re-direct examination. Armstrong cross-examined Parker about his training in
reading MRI scans and his disagreement with Armstrong's expert concerning the proper interpretation of
the MRI scans. Armstrong also cross-examined Parker about several other matters raised in his testimony.   
See Footnote 1  After McLoughlin conducted a re-direct examination of Parker, the trial court found
Armstrong had ample opportunity to cross-examine Parker, that no new matter was introduced on re-direct,
and the court would not allow further cross-examination. See Tex. R. Evid. 611.
   The trial court has broad discretion to control the examination of witnesses and determine whether to
allow re-cross examination. See Tex. R. Evid. 611; Tricon Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Thumann, 226 S.W.3d 494,
508 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). Armstrong cross-examined Parker about his opinions
and, as the trial court found, no new matter was introduced on re-direct. We cannot conclude the trial court
abused its discretion in limiting further cross-examination. We overrule Armstrong's second issue.
   We affirm the trial court's judgment.

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE


080253F.P05

Footnote 1         The reporter's record includes only Parker's testimony and related proceedings. It consists
of 108 pages. Parker's testimony is 99 pages long, of which 61 pages is cross-examination by Armstrong.

File Date[02/23/2009]
File Name[080253F]
File Locator[02/23/2009-080253F]