Page 16

              - 16 -
using him. And fair play and the right to
enforce the law as contemplated by the
[l]egislature entitles the defense to know
who he is."
In February 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to recon-sider
the trial court's January 2006 ruling requiring disclosure
of the consultant. At an April 2006 hearing on that motion, the
court asked Geleerd if Leslie had been contacted and was "on
board" as of the March 22, 2005, hearing. Geleerd responded that
he had contacted both Leslie and Rhame in November 2004. How-ever,
he acknowledged that as of March 22, 2005, (1) he had not
yet sent Leslie or Rhame all of the medical records in the case,
(2) neither Leslie nor Rhame had sufficient records upon which
they could make an opinion as to whether the case presented a
meritorious cause of action, and (3) the only person who could
make such an opinion was his unnamed consultant. The court
denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider. Later in April 2006,
Geleerd revealed to defendants that plaintiff's consultant was
Dr. Bernard R. Lerner.
During a May 2006 conference call with counsel, the
trial court was advised that a question had arisen as to whether
Lerner was licensed to practice medicine at the time his opinion
was given. Geleerd was to get an affidavit and documentation
regarding that issue. The record does not show that Geleerd ever