Rule 706 Did Not Require Appointment of Expert for Indigent Malpractice Plaintiff, Says DC Circuit

A pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis in a malpractice action against multiple oral surgeons was not entitled to a court-appointed expert under Fed. R. Evid. 706, the D.C. Circuit has ruled. The plaintiff "acknowledged that he had been in contact with many experts who had been unable or unwilling to help." In addition, "appointed trial counsel consulted an expert who
found no likely fault with [the plaintiff's] first two surgeries," and "medical tests by the Bureau of Prisons showed no continuing TMJ problems." Absent stronger indicia that the claims were meritorious, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint an expert. See Gaviria v. Reynolds, No. 05-7010 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 9, 2007) (Ginsburg, Rogers, & Kavanaugh, JJ.).