Hoover et al v. USA
ORDER finding that Dr. Runnels' deposition testimony can be used at trial, and overruling the government's 33 Objection. The Court will allow the government the opportunity to conduct a cross-examination of Dr. Runnels by deposition sometime prior to trial. 43 MOTION in Limine to Declare A.C.A. 16-114-207 Unconstitutional filed by Vivian Hoover, Walter Paul Hoover is denied as moot. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 6/24/13. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WALTER PAUL HOOVER AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Pending are the government’s objections to the use of the deposition of Dr. Vincent
Runnels based upon Ark. Code Ann. §16-114-207(3), docket # 33. Plaintiffs have responded
and reply briefs have been filed by both parties. Also pending is Plaintiffs’ alternative motion to
declare Ark. Code Ann. §16-114-207(3) unconstitutional.
The government argues that the Plaintiffs are barred from offering standard of care
opinion testimony or proximate causation opinion testimony by Dr. Runnels in their case-inchief. Dr. Runnels voluntarily offered his standard of care and causation opinions in his
deposition. Further, as one of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, Dr. Runnels opinions are also
contained in the Plaintiff’s medical records. Dr. Runnels is not subject to the subpoena power of
the Court, thus, Plaintiffs have designated his deposition for use at trial.
The Court finds that Dr. Runnels deposition testimony can be used at trial. The
government’s objections are overruled. (Docket # 33) However, the Court will allow the
government the opportunity to conduct a cross examination of Dr. Runnels by deposition
sometime prior to trial.
Plaintiffs’ motion to declare Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-207(3)
unconstitutional is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2013.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
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?