Diaz v. Safeway Inc.
Filing
29
Order on Motion in Limine
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MARINA V. DIAZ,
Case No. 3:05-CV-0001 TMB
Plaintiff,
vs.
O R D E R Re: MOTION IN LIMINE
SAFEWAY, INC.,
(Docket 18)
Defendant.
This personal injury action arises from a slip-and-fall accident on July 3, 2002, in a Safeway
grocery store. Docket 1, Exhibit B (Complaint). At the time of the fall, Plaintiff was seven months
pregnant. Id. According to the Complaint, the fall resulted in “premature contractions and
bleeding, which caused plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. . . . In addition to incurring past and
future medical expenses and pain and suffering, plaintiff has lost wages and suffered diminished
ability to engage in her occupation as a result of defendant’s negligence.” Id. Plaintiff alleges
damages in excess of $75,000. Id.
Defendant Safeway has filed a Motion in Limine to preclude Plaintiff from testifying with
respect to medical causation of her injuries. Docket Nos. 18, 19 & 20. Plaintiff has opposed the
motion, and Defendant has replied. Docket Nos. 26 & 24.
Defendant relies upon Federal Rules of Evidence 702 & 703, seeking to prohibit the
Plaintiff from offering testimony regarding the causation of her physical injuries as related to the
slip-and-fall at Safeway. Docket 20. Specifically, Defendant complains that “Diaz does not have
the requisite specialized knowledge, experience, training or education rendering her qualified to
give an opinion on medical causation.” Docket 20 at 4. Defendant notes that the Alaska Supreme
Court has recognized that expert medical testimony is needed where there is no reasonably apparent
causal relationship between the event demonstrated and the result sought to be proved. Docket 20
at 4, citing Choi v. Anvil, 32 P.3d 1, 3 (Alaska 2001). Defendant contends that “the issue of
1
whether Diaz’s alleged physical injuries were caused by the slip and fall at Safeway is clearly a
matter requiring scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.” Docket 20 at 4. “Even
though Diaz can testify at trial about her alleged physical complaints and injuries following the slip
and fall accident, she cannot offer any testimony that her complaints and injuries were proximately
caused by the slip and fall accident. Accordingly, the jury cannot determine causation without
evidence of some expert testimony linking Diaz’s alleged pregnancy complications, and back, neck,
and leg injuries to the slip and fall accident.” Docket 20 at 6.
Plaintiff opposes the Motion, complaining that Defendant’s motion seeks to bar her from
telling the jury that when she fell she was seven months pregnant, that immediately after she fell she
had contractions and went to the hospital, that she experience pain when she fell, that the hospital
instructed her to go home and rest, that she saw blood in the shower a few days later, and that when
she returned to the hospital she learned that there was bleeding on the placenta, but that it had
stopped. Docket 26.
Plaintiff also relies on Choi v. Anvil, noting that the Alaska Supreme Court
held that medical expert testimony was not always necessary to prove causation in all personal
injury actions. Docket 26 at 2.
In Choi, the court noted that “lay testimony, based on personal observation, described a
situation easily understood by a jury: a rear-end automobile collision causing relatively common
injuries. . . . Although a medical expert might have more precisely described the relationship
between the impact and the effects described by the plaintiffs, the jury, using everyday experience,
could readily find a causal relationship without this expert assistance.” 32 P.3d at 4. The court held
that “because the causation and injuries were reasonably related to the impact between the
automobiles, there was no need for an expert” Id.
Plaintiff suggests that her case is no different from an auto accident, as her contractions,
pain, and bleeding started within moments or a few days after her fall in the grocery store. Docket
26 at 3. “Plaintiff submits that a medical opinion is unnecessary for a jury to connect the dots of
these simple facts; particularly when, for the most part, they demonstrate an absence of serious
injury or complications.” Docket 26 at 3-4.
2
In Reply, Defendant suggests that Plaintiff has misconstrued the relief requested in the
underlying motion. Docket 24. Defendant does not seek to preclude her from testifying about how
her slip and fall occurred or the symptoms she experienced during and immediately after the fall.
Docket 24. Rather, the purpose of the Motion in Limine is to preclude Plaintiff from giving
opinions regarding “the diagnosis of or cause of any alleged medical conditions,” including her lay
opinion “that the slip and fall caused a herniated disc or any other transitory or permanent or
pathological back condition, preterm labor, or placental bleeding.” Docket 24 at 2. Defendant
argues that the distinction between describing her symptoms and testifying that those symptoms
were caused by the slip and fall is important because Plaintiff has a history of medical problems,
several of which could have caused the conditions she attributes to the slip and fall.1 Id.
Defendant argues that the causal relationship between the fall and the pregnancy complications and
back injury is not a matter within the “common knowledge and experience of the average person,”
as contemplated in Choi. Defendant is adamant that expert testimony is “required to establish a
causal connection because there is no reasonably apparent causal relationship between the fall and
the results sought to be proved, which are plaintiff’s alleged pregnancy complications, and
continuing back injury.” Docket 24 at 4.
Based on the pleadings, the parties generally agree that Plaintiff should be permitted to
testify that when she fell she was seven months pregnant, that immediately after she fell she had
contractions and went to the hospital, that she experience pain when she fell, that the hospital
instructed her to go home and rest, that she saw blood in the shower a few days later, and that when
she returned to the hospital she was told that there was bleeding on the placenta, but that it had
stopped. Docket 26 at 1-2; Docket 24 at 2. However, Defendant complains that “Diaz does not
have the requisite specialized knowledge, experience, training or education rendering her qualified
to give an opinion on medical causation.” Docket 20 at 4. Plaintiff argues that “a medical opinion
is unnecessary for a jury to connect the dots of these simple facts.” Docket 26 at 3-4.
1
For example, subsequent to the fall, Plaintiff was diagnosed with gestational diabetes, which
is a condition that could cause pregnancy complications such as preterm labor contractions.
3
Ultimately, this matter is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 701:
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of
opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a)
rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) helpful to a clear understanding
of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and ( c) not based
on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Plaintiff is not qualified to offer testimony under Rules 702 and 703 that her injuries or medical
conditions are causally related to her slip and fall on July 3, 2002. The Motion in Limine at
Docket 18 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s testimony may include the circumstances surrounding her
slip and fall and her alleged physical complaints and injuries following the accident, but she cannot
offer any testimony that her subsequent complaints and injuries were proximately caused by the slip
and fall accident.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 23rd day of March, 2006.
/s/ Timothy Burgess
Timothy M. Burgess
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?