2008-084, IN RE NICHOLAS L.

The respondent, Nicholas L., appeals a decision of the

attorney general, on the memorandum of law and orally), for the State. Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Suzanne M. Gorman, senior assistant

to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: A. Bernson on the brief and orally), for the respondent. Bernson Legal and Guardian ad Litem Services, P.L.L.C., of Dover (Tracy

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. IN RE NICHOLAS L.

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2008-084 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Strafford County Probate Court Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as b, the State was required to disclose Dr. Schopick as an expert. p. 2 court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because, pursuant to RSA 516:29- thirty days before trial. only rebuttal evidence, in which case the disclosure must be made at least must be made at least ninety days before trial, unless the expert is offering

with his report. The respondent appeals his committal, arguing that the trial

court denied the motion. At the hearing, Dr. Schopick testified consistently disclose Dr. Schopick because he had been appointed by the court. The trial witnesses. to the content of his testimony, and that the State did not have an obligation to are to be made at a time and in a sequence directed by the court, but in the intend to call any expert witnesses and that all of its witnesses would be fact includes specific information. Pursuant to RSA 516:29-b, III, these disclosures disclosure pursuant to RSA 516:29-b. The State responded that it did not orders otherwise, to provide for each such witness a written report that emergency involuntary admission proceedings under RSA chapter 135-C. 516:29-b. The State counters that RSA 516:29-b does not apply to non- The respondent argues that the State failed to comply with RSA

that Dr. Schopick would testify, that his report put the respondent on notice as

intended to call to testify and, for each witness, to provide a complete opponents any expert witness and, unless the parties so stipulate or the court RSA 516:29-b requires parties in civil cases to disclose to their

civilly committed for the maximum duration of five years.

disclosed any expert witnesses that it intended to call. The State responded the State would be unable to meet its burden of proof because it had not interrogatory requesting that the State list any and all expert witnesses it On the day of the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that

provided. requested a copy of Dr. Schopick’s complete file on the respondent, which he admission pursuant to RSA 135-C:34 (2005), and recommended that he be evaluation with the probate court. See RSA 135-C:41 (2005). The respondent that the respondent met the standard for non-emergency involuntary On October 9, 2007, Dr. Schopick filed a copy of his psychiatric appointed Dr. Schopick to evaluate the respondent. Dr. Schopick concluded

Before the commitment hearing, the respondent propounded an

involuntary admission. Pursuant to RSA 1 p. 3 35-C:40 (2005), the probate court In September 2007, the State filed its petition for non-emergency 3

own report and filed it with the probate court.

thus, were not preserved for our review.

to RSA 516:29-b because the issue is not before us.

independent of the parties and was appointed by the court. He prepared his the case.” Here, neither party employed or retained Dr. Schopick; he is witness who is retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in to address them because they were not included in his notice of appeal, and,

commitment would be required to disclose a retained expert witness pursuant We do not address whether a party to a non-emergency involuntary civil BRODERICK, C.J., and DUGGAN and HICKS, JJ., concurred. motion to dismiss based upon the State’s failure to comply with RSA 516:29-b.

Comm’n, 157 N.H. 658, 662 (2008).

Under RSA 516:29-b, a party is required to make disclosures “with respect to a Although the respondent raises other arguments in his brief, we decline

isolation, but together with all associated sections.

language that the legislature did not see fit to include. therefore, conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the respondent’s meaning to the words used. See RSA 1 p. 3 35-C:40. We,

which we review in statutory interpretation. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, RSA chapter 1 p. 3 35-C is an issue of first impression and requires that we engage We hold that RSA 516:29-b does not apply to the facts of this case.

statute to lead to a reasonable result and review a particular provision, not in

as written and will not consider what the legislature might have said or add

examining the language of the statute, we ascribe the plain and ordinary

de novo. MacPherson v. Weiner, 158 N.H. 6, 9 (2008). When

appointed experts in involuntary civil commitment proceedings pursuant to Whether the disclosure requirements of RSA 516:29-b apply to court-