Amrani v. United States of America

Filing 211

ORDER denying 189 Motion in Limine to preclude testimony from Dr. Shayam Shridharani. See PDF. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 12/10/14. (JWS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jacob Amrani,

10
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

United States of America,

14

Defendant.

15
16

2:12-cv-2583 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at docket 189]

I. MOTION PRESENTED

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

At docket 189 plaintiff Jacob Amrani (“Dr. Amrani”) asks the court to preclude
testimony from Dr. Shayam Shridharani (“Dr. Shridharani”) about Dr. Armani’s earning

19
20
21

potential on the grounds that he is not competent to offer opinion testimony pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Defendant United States of America (“United States”)

22

opposes at docket 192. No reply has been filed. Oral argument would not assist the

23

court.

24
25

II. BACKGROUND
Dr. Amrani is a board certified orthopedic surgeon who specialized in spine

26
27
28

surgery. He practiced for many years in Kansas, but moved to Phoenix in 2006.
Dr. Amrani’s practice in Phoenix was conducted at his own clinic, the Deer Valley Spine

1
2
3

Center. Because he is a veteran, Dr. Amrani is eligible to receive his own medical care
from the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”).
Dr. Amrani had been an avid weightlifter and injured his right shoulder lifting

4
5

weights. At first, Dr. Amrani avoided seeking care from another physician. Eventually

6

Dr. Amrani sought treatment at the VA hospital in Phoenix. Dr. Amrani was placed

7

under the care of Dr. Cranford, a board certified orthopedic surgeon employed by the

8

VA hospital. On November 17, 2011, Dr. Cranford performed right shoulder rotator cuff

9

surgery on Dr. Amrani. The surgery included excision of a soft tissue mass in the

10
shoulder. As a result of the surgery, Dr. Amrani experienced some degree of damage
11
12

to the axillary nerve. Dr. Amrani claims that the excision of the soft tissue mass was

13

undertaken without his consent, was performed negligently, and resulted in the nerve

14

damage. Dr. Amrani claims that as a result of the medical negligence of Dr. Cranford,

15

he has experienced a substantial loss of function in his right shoulder and right arm

16

which has deprived him of the ability to practice spine surgery and has generally

17
18
19

interfered with his enjoyment of life. Dr. Amrani seeks in excess of $6.2 million in
damages.

20

The United States retained Dr. Shridharani to determ ine and offer opinion

21

testimony relating to Dr. Amrani’s earning capacity. Dr. Amrani asks the court to

22

preclude the opinion testimony on the grounds that Dr. Shridharani does not qualify to

23

offer such testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 702 permits opinion testimony by an expert when the witness is qualified
and the witness’s opinion is relevant and reliable. 1 With respect to Rule 702, “a district

4
5

court’s inquiry into admissibility is a flexible one.”2 The purpose of the district court’s

6

inquiry is “to screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions” and not to “exclude

7

opinions merely because they are impeachable.”3 The district court functions as a

8

“gatekeeper, not a fact finder.”4

9
10

Under Rule 702, a witness “is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education.”5 “Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the

11
12

knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry. And it is reliable

13

if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of

14

the relevant discipline.”6 The district court’s task in screening a scientific opinion for

15

reliability has been explained in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.7 and its

16

progeny. “The court must assess the expert’s reasoning or methodology, using as

17
18

appropriate criteria such as testability, publication in peer-reviewed literature, known or

19
20
1

21

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

2

22
23
24
25

City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F. 3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014).

3

Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. 2013).

4

Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted).

5

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

26

6

27

7

28

Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565 (internal quotation omitted).
509 U.S. 579 (1993).

3

1
2
3

potential error rate, and general acceptance.” 8 When non-scientific testimony is at
issue, the “Daubert factors (peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc.) simply
are not applicable . . . .” 9 The reliability of such non-scientific testimony depends more

4
5
6

“on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory
behind it.”10

7
8
9

IV. DISCUSSION
Dr. Shridharani is a board certified orthopedic surgeon who has completed a
fellowship in spine surgery. He is currently an assistant professor of orthopedic surgery

10
11
12

at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson. His curriculum vitae is
lengthy and impressive. His training and experience as a spine surgeon establish that

13

Dr. Shridharani is qualified to testify about what medical and surgical procedures fall

14

within the ambit of orthopedic spine surgeons. Furthermore, his deposition testimony

15

shows that he is familiar with the particular surgical procedures Dr. Amrani has

16

performed subsequent to his own shoulder surgery. The deposition testimony also

17
18

shows that Dr. Shridharani is familiar with the use of spinal injections in the treatment of

19

back problems. Dr. Shridharani is of the opinion that Dr. Amrani is capable of

20

administering spinal injections despite the sequella of his own surgery.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1044.

9

Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir. 2000)).
10

Id.

4

1
2
3

Dr. Shridharani’s opinion is based on his own training and experience as an orthopedic
spine surgeon.
Dr. Amrani’s principal objection to Dr. Shridharani’s qualification is that he is not

4
5

a vocational rehabilitation specialist. That objection misses the point. Dr. Shridharani is

6

not offering an opinion about vocational rehabilitation. His opinion is directed at the

7

services Dr. Amrani can actually provide as an orthopedic spine surgeon. That is an

8

area in which Dr. Shridharani is obviously qualified.

9

Dr. Amrani also points out that Dr. Shridharani has only six years of experience

10
as an orthopedic surgeon, that he has generally worked as an employee in large
11
12

practice groups rather than as a surgeon with his own private practice, such as the one

13

Dr. Amrani has operated, that he has never practiced in Phoenix, and that he is

14

unfamiliar with the market for surgeons in Phoenix. These concerns go to the weight of

15

Dr. Shridharani’s testimony, not its admissibility.

16

Dr. Shridharani’s testimony will not address all of the issues relating to

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Dr. Amrani’s earning capacity. Nevertheless, what he has to say about the kind of
services that could be provided to patients by Dr. Amrani will be helpful to the trier of
fact. Dr. Shridharani will be allowed to offer opinion testimony under Rule 702.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the motion at docket 189 is DENIED.
DATED this 10th day of December 2014.

24
25
26

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

5