to be ordinary witnesses when their knowledge and opinions of patients’ conditions are obtained outside the realm of litigation through their own perceptions. In Morris-Rosdail v. Sche-chinger, 576 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa App.1998), the court found that two doctors, one who examined the plaintiff nine months prior to the commencement of a lawsuit and a second who was actively treating the plaintiff at the time of trial, did not develop their opinions as to the plaintiffs condition in anticipation of the lawsuit or with the trial in mind and were thus treating physicians. Id. at 612. The court thereby held that the rule governing disclosure of experts did not apply and that the doctors’ testimony as to the plaintiffs permanent impairment and need for future surgery was , 690 (E.D.Mich.2004) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 43.] In the instant case Veith came to Dr.
holding that in granting summary judgment the trial courts disregard of the plaintiffs proffered expert testimony was not erroneous because that testimony would go not to the question of whether defendants decision took safety into account but rather would go to the question of the quality of the decision holding in a personal injury action where the plaintiff proffered a psychologists trial testimony would be limited to the nature cause and treatment of the plaintiffs psychological injury resulting from the accident that under the federal rule of civil procedure governing pretrial disclosure for expert witnesses the plaintiff was not required to file a written expert report prepared by the plaintiffs treating psychologist holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a permanent nuisance action for injury to property because none of the plaintiffs were the owners of the land when the cause of action accrued with the first injury holding that civil defendant had the right to crossexamine plaintiffs expert psychological witness about plaintiffs juvenile record in part because examination of this record formed part of the basis for experts testimony holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury