
    Rebekah Arlene AMSHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua S. MOSER, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-1050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 29, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 13, 2002.
    John N. Dalton, Jr., Dalton & Moore, P.C., Radford, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel J. Meador, Jr., Morin & Barkley, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Rebekah Arlene Amshey appeals the district court judgment in accordance with a jury special verdict awarding her $380 in this diversity suit arising from injuries Amshey sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Amshey argues the district court erred in excluding her expert and prohibiting her from testifying to certain medical expenses. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

During pre-trial proceedings, Amshey designated Dr. Alben G. Goldstein as her expert witness under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2). Moser filed two motions in limine seeking to exclude Dr. Goldstein’s testimony on discovery and evidentiary grounds. On the morning of trial, the district court found the motions as to Dr. Goldstein moot because Amshey had declined to arrange for Dr. Goldstein to be present.

A court’s decision regarding the admission of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Benedi v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc., 66 F.3d 1378, 1383 (4th Cir.1995); Persinger v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 920 F.2d 1185, 1187 (4th Cir.1990). We find the district court did not abuse its discretion as Amshey’s failure to present her witness at trial foreclosed the issue.

Amshey additionally argues the district court erred by excluding her testimony regarding medical treatment during and after April 1997. Because Amshey did not lay a proper foundation for this testimony, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling based upon the jury’s special verdict. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Amshey contends she chose not to incur the expense of calling the expert witness at trial because, after a pretrial motions hearing, a different district judge indicated his inclination to exclude the expert. The parties agree that there was no formal ruling to this effect. Absent such ruling, the trial judge acted within his discretion in concluding that Amshey’s failure to call the witness foreclosed consideration of the admissibility of his testimony. Moreover, Amshey's regret of her strategic decision not to call the witness is no basis to disturb the trial court's ruling.
     