Cook v. The Hughston Clinic, P.C. et al

Filing 58

ORDER that the defendants' 49 Motion to Strike be and is hereby DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/9/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
LORRAINE COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HUGHSTON CLINIC, P.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:14cv296-WKW
(WO)

ORDER
Now pending before the court is the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Amended Supplemental Expert Report (doc. # 49) filed on January 22, 2015.
In his supplemental expert witness report, Dr. Tonks indicated that he had reviewed
diagnostic images including radiographs and CT scans. (Doc. # 41, Ex. 1, p.1). He further
stated that
[t]he exhibits which will be used to support my opinions are a few of the
radiological images. These images are post-operative films.
(Id. at p. 2)
In his amended supplemental report which was provided to the defendants just prior
to oral argument on the defendants’ third motion to strike, Dr. Tonks specifically identified
the radiological images he reviewed.
The exhibits which will be used to support my opinions are a few of the
radiological images. The CAT scans taken post operatively on December 1
and December 2, 2011; Indicate the screws are positions to injure the nerves.
(Doc. # 49, Ex. A, p.2).

On February 6, 2015, the plaintiff confirmed that the CAT scans Dr. Tonks identified
in his amended supplemental expert report were the same radiological images that he
referenced in his December 11, 2014, supplemental expert report. Because Dr. Tonks’
amended supplemental report simply identified the diagnostic imaging he reviewed more
explicitly, it did not present or rely on any new or previously unidentified information.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 49) be and is hereby
DENIED.
Done this 9th day of February, 2015.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE