Jordan v. Central Transport, LLC et al

Filing 145

ORDER denying 128 Motion in Limine on Medical Issues. Parties to meet before trial to determine medical records and bills that can be received into evidence by stipulation. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 12, 2019. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

MARQCHELLO JORDAN
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:17-cv-4011

ELMER ENRIQUE VENTURA,
JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and
JOHN DOE 3

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Elmer Enrique Ventura’s Motion in Limine on Medical
Issues. ECF No. 128. Plaintiff Marqchello Jordan has filed a response. ECF No. 139. The Court
finds the matter ripe for consideration.
This case arises from an automobile accident that occurred on May 6, 2015, on I-30 near
Prescott, Arkansas. Jordan and Ventura are both tractor-trailer drivers. Jordan claims that Ventura
entered into Jordan’s travel lane and pushed his tractor-trailer into another, disabled tractor-trailer
parked on the side of the interstate. Jordan alleges that he suffered injuries as a result of the
accident.
Ventura moves the Court to exclude certain medical records and expenses at trial. First,
Ventura moves to exclude any medical illustrations, radiology reports, and other medical records
for which a proper foundation cannot be laid. Second, Ventura moves to exclude evidence of
medical treatment in which there will be no physician to testify that it was reasonably and
necessarily required as a proximate result of the accident at issue.
A. Medical Records
Ventura argues that the Court should exclude medical records at trial for which a proper
foundation cannot be laid because such documents would confuse and mislead the jury. Ventura

acknowledges that medical records may be received into evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 803(6) as an exception to hearsay. However, Ventura asserts that any medical records
created by a physician who will not testify at trial should be excluded under Federal Rule of
Evidence 403. Rule 403 provides that the Court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading
the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid.
403. Ventura argues that without a witness to explain the medical records, these records will be
confusing to the jury, and any diagnosis or opinion contained in these records would not be subject
to cross-examination.
Jordan argues that the medical records created by physicians who will not testify at trial
are highly probative of his claim for damages and that there is no danger of confusing the jury
because these records are not complex and will not be unexplained. Jordan asserts that he and his
treating physician, Dr. Kabakibou, whose deposition will be offered as testimony at trial, are
competent to authenticate and discuss these records.
Ventura asks the Court to exclude a broad range of medical documents solely because there
will be no physician to testify as to these records. The Court, however, has not seen the medical
records and does not know whether the records involve a complex diagnosis or the straightforward
observations of a physician. Further, the Court is unaware of the context in which Dr. Kabakibou
will rely on these records. Thus, the Court cannot determine at this time whether the medical
records should be excluded. If there is a question as to whether a proper foundation has been laid
for a particular medical record, the parties are directed to approach the bench. Jordan will be
required to lay a proper foundation for the medical records pursuant to the Federal Rules of
Evidence. Accordingly, this portion of Ventura’s motion is DENIED.

2

B. Testimony Regarding Past Medical Treatment and Expenses
Ventura moves the Court to exclude any evidence of medical treatment by any physician
other than Dr. Kabakibou, who it appears will be the only physician to testify at trial as to Jordan’s
medical treatment. Ventura argues that this evidence should be excluded because expert testimony
is required to establish a connection between the treatment/expense and the alleged negligence of
Ventura. Jordan asserts that, under Arkansas law, he is a competent witness to lay the foundation
for the introduction of the medical bills regarding his treatment.
Expert testimony is not required to prove that medical charges were reasonable and
necessary. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-46-107. If there is a question as to the reasonableness or
necessity of a particular charge, the parties are directed to approach the bench. Jordan will be
required to make a causal connection between the expenses and the alleged negligence of Ventura.
Accordingly, this portion of Ventura’s motion is DENIED.
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Ventura’s motion (ECF No. 128) should
be and hereby is DENIED. Further, the Court directs the parties to meet before trial to determine
which medical records and bills can be received into evidence by stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of March, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

3