He then opined that Austin’s “academic records are relevant and material to my expert review, analysis and consideration of the source and etiology of alleged developmental disabilities found in Patrick.” “Familial” characteristics are those “tending to occur in more members of a family than expected by chance alone.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 419 (Frederick C. Mish ed., 10th ed.2001). Thus, the affidavit presents evidence from which the trial court could properly conclude that the records were relevant to a core issue in the case: whether Patrick’s disabilities are familial characteristics and part of a “family history” that contributed to the alleged disabilities, as contrasted with injuries resulting from any alleged medical malpractice. See Poole, 666 N.W.2d at 565 (<HOLDING>); Wepy by Wepy v. Shen, 175 A.D.2d 124, 125,
holding that nonparty siblings school records were relevant because of expert testimony that genetics may account for some of the symptoms exhibited by the plaintiffs holding that the fdic is entitled to rely exclusively on the account records of the failed institution and that while ownership under state law is one prerequisite for insurance coverage the deposit account records are controlling holding academic records of siblings admissible based on expert affidavit stating that a possible connection existed between the neurological problems of the plaintiff and those of her siblings which would support a defense that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff have a genetic cause holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care holding that the school records of the plaintiffs nonparty siblings were admissible at trial when expert testimony established that the records were relevant according to standard relevancy test