Holcomb v. Ramar et al

Filing 153

ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO DR. BRAATON'S DE BENE ESSE DEPOSITOIN, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/10/2017. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HARVEY HOLCOMB,

9

Plaintiff

10
11

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1102 AWI SKO
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO DR.
BRAATON’S DE BENE ESSE
DEPOSITOIN

v.
JERRY RAMAR, et al.,

12

Defendants

(Doc. No. 150)

13
14
15

This is a civil rights case that arises out of a confrontation between Plaintiff Harvey

16

Holcomb (“Holcomb”) and members of the City of Modesto Police Department. Trial in this

17

matter is currently set for August 8, 2017.

18

Trial was previously set for October 18, 2016, but was vacated so that Holcomb could

19

respond to a motion in limine that was filed on October 14, 2016 (“the October MIL”). The

20

October MIL sought to exclude portions of the de bene esse deposition of Holcomb’s treating

21

physician, Dr. Paul Braaton.

22

In December 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the October MIL and

23

limited Dr. Braaton’s expert testimony to opinions that he formed during the course of Holcomb’s

24

treatment.

25

On March 8, 2017, the Court set a new trial date of August 8, 2017, and also set a

26

telephonic trial confirmation date of July 25, 2017. See Doc. No. 148. In setting the new trial

27

date, the Court also included deadlines for the parties to reach an agreement regarding the

28

presentation of Dr. Braaton’s deposition. In light of the Court’s ruling on the October MIL, the

1

parties were given to June 1, 2017, to reach an agreement with respect to which portions of Dr.

2

Braaton’s deposition would be played to the jury. See id. If the parties could not reach an

3

agreement, then they were to submit briefing regarding the particular passages of the de bene esse

4

deposition to which there remained a dispute. See id.

5
6

On May 31, 2017, the parties filed a notice that an agreement had been reached as to a
majority of Dr. Braaton’s deposition testimony, but full agreement could not be achieved.

7

On June 15, 2017, the parties filed a joint brief that identified the specific parts of Dr.

8

Braaton’s deposition that were objectionable. See Doc. No. 150.1 Defendants object to 11

9

excerpts and Holcomb objects to 3 excerpts. See id.

10

The Court will examine each excerpt separately.

11
12

Legal Framework

13

Rule 26(a)(2) provides for mandatory disclosures regarding expert witnesses. See Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 26(a)(2); Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, 742 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 2014). For testifying

15

experts retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony, the expert is required to

16

submit a detailed report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). For experts who are not retained or

17

specially employed to provide expert testimony, certain disclosures must still be made but a

18

detailed report is not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C); Mackay, 742 F.3d at 865 n.1.

19

“These experts typically include treating physicians . . . .” Mackay, 742 F.3d at 865 n.1. “[A]

20

treating physician is only exempt from Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s written report requirement to the extent

21

that his opinions were formed during the course of treatment.” Goodman v. Staples the Office

22

Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Fielden v. CSX Transp., Inc., 482

23

F.3d 866, 871 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] report is not required when a treating physician testifies within

24

a permissive core on issues pertaining to treatment, based on what he or she learned through actual

25

treatment and from the plaintiff's records up to and including that treatment.”). Under this rule, as

26
27
28

1

The Court notes that the parties identified the parts of the deposition at issue by not only listing the page and line
numbers in the briefing, but also by providing a copy of the deposition transcript that identified by color those
portions to which there was agreement, those portions to which Defendants objected, and those portions to which
Holcomb objected. The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to clearly and efficiently identify the last issues
surrounding Dr. Braaton’s testimony.

2

1

long as the opinions were formed during the course of treatment, a physician need not submit the

2

detailed Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report and may offer opinions relating to the plaintiff’s appearance and

3

condition from the start to the end of treatment, the extent of the plaintiff’s disability, the treating

4

physician’s treatment of the plaintiff, the treating physician’s assessment of plaintiff’s condition

5

during and at the conclusion of treatment, the plaintiff’s prognosis, causation, and the need for

6

future treatment. See Alfaro v. D. Las Vegas, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113949, *36-*37 (D.

7

Nev. Aug. 24, 2016); Israeli v. Ruiz, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97650, *10-*11 (S.D. N.Y. July 27,

8

2015). Opinions that were not formed during the course of treatment, including opinions that were

9

formed after viewing “outside materials,” must be presented in a detailed Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report.

10

See Goodman, 644 F.3d at 826; Fielden, 482 F.3d at 871. The use of “hypotheticals” is generally

11

inappropriate with respect to the opinions of a treating physician. In re C. R. Bard, Inc., 948

12

F.Supp.2d 589, 615 & n.3 (S.D. W. Va. 2013); Whitley v. Yarber, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186430,

13

*11-*12 (N.D. Ga. 2013). The proponent of evidence, including expert testimony, bears the

14

burden of showing its admissibility. See In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 385 (9th

15

Cir. 2010); United States v. 87.09 Acres of Land, 530 F.3d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 2008).

16
17

Testimony At Issue

18

1.

19

In relevant part, Dr. Braaton testified:

20

Q:

21

Page 11:21 to Page 12:4

All right. Now when in your treatment and meetings with [Holcomb], did you get the
impression he was aware of his limitations?

22

A:

Oh, yeah. He was really aware of his limitations.

23

Q:

And - -

24

A:

I mean, he was going around searching for answers to his autoimmune disease for

25

quite some time. And went and saw a number of physicians at different centers.

26

Defendants’ Objections

27

Defendants object, without elaboration, that the above excerpts are speculation, vague,

28

non-responsive, and lack foundation.
3

1

Discussion

2

The Court will overrule Defendants’ objections. Dr. Braaton’s answer is responsive to the

3

question posed, and the question was expressly based on Dr. Braaton’s treatment and meetings

4

with Holcomb. The questions and answers for this excerpt are not so vague or speculative that it

5

is necessary to strike this testimony.

6

2.

7

Dr. Braaton testified in pertinent part:

Page 14:24 to Page 15:15

8

Q:

Would that surprise you if he used a wheelchair now and then?

9

A:

No, it wouldn’t. If he was walking long distances and had a lot of pain.

10

Q:

Okay. So if he had to walk let’s say a block or two, do you think it would have been

11
12

appropriate for him to use a wheelchair?
A:

13

If he had a lot of pain, I -- so I would have to really review, go back through the
records and see if we wrote him a prescription for a wheelchair.

14

Q:

Sure.

15

A:

I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point he did. And then he used those on any kind

16

of -- whenever he wanted to -- whenever he felt that he needed – he wasn’t able to

17

walk the distance, like maybe going into a store like Costco or to the mall. He would

18

use a wheelchair. I -- I would have left that up to him.

19

Defendants’ Objections

20

Defendants object that this excerpt is speculation, irrelevant, and beyond the scope of a

21

treating physician because Dr. Braaton did not prescribe a wheelchair, never saw Holcomb in a

22

wheel chair, and what surprises Dr. Braaton is not relevant.

23

Discussion

24

The Court will overrule Defendants’ objections. The use of a wheelchair is relevant

25

because Holcomb contends that he used a wheelchair from time to time and that his wheelchair

26

would have been visible to Defendant Ramar when he approached Holcomb’s vehicle. The Court

27

understands that Ramar will testify that he did not see the wheelchair. Also, the use of a

28

wheelchair is relevant in that it can help the jury to understand the extent of Holcomb’s condition,
4

1

which in turn can help the jury to resolve the conflicting testimony of the parties. Furthermore,

2

the testimony is not outside the scope of a treating physician. Dr. Braaton is permitted to explain

3

the nature and extent of Holcomb’s condition/symptoms. Finally, Dr. Braaton testified

4

immediately before the objectionable testimony that Holcomb may have been in a wheelchair

5

sometimes, but that he didn’t remember Holcomb in a wheelchair per se. See Braaton Depo.

6

14:19-23. That is, contrary to Defendants’ objection, Dr. Braaton did not testify that he has no

7

memory of Holcomb in a wheelchair during the course of treatment.

8

3.

9

At Page 15:16 to Page 16:5, Dr. Braaton is shown a picture of Holcomb in which Holcomb

10

Page 15:16 to Page 16:5

is sitting in the door of an automobile and holding a cane.2

11

Parties’ Arguments

12

Defendants object that the testimony is irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, cumulative, and

13

beyond the scope of a treating physician. Defendants argue that Dr. Braaton can and did describe

14

Holcomb’s condition and need for a cane. The photo is used to suggest that Dr. Braaton believed

15

that Holcomb would have used a cane in this circumstance and to get out of the specific car. The

16

photo adds nothing relevant to Dr. Braaton’s testimony regarding Holcomb’s need for and use of a

17

cane, and the photo is too close to the facts of this case for Dr. Braaton to comment on. Further,

18

using the photo is a way to circumvent the Court’s ruling that Dr. Braaton cannot testify that

19

Holcomb most likely would have used a cane and leaned on the door to get out of the car.

20

Holcomb responds that it would be unfair to strike this portion of the deposition because,

21

as a de bene esse deposition, there is no way to reframe the question and Defendants made no

22

objection during the deposition. Holcomb also responds that the photo has not been excluded, and

23

it can be authenticated by any witness. Further, the questions simply ask the doctor to say there is

24

a cane and the photo was in a car. It does not imply an opinion by the doctor.

25

Discussion

26

Initially, the objection that the testimony is beyond the scope of a treating physician is not

27

persuasive. Treating physicians are percipient witnesses and may give non-expert testimony that

28

2

The picture was not been provided to the Court.

5

1

is not constrained by Rule of Evidence 702 or Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). See Alfaro, 2016

2

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113949 at *37 (“The disclosure obligation stated in [Rule 26(a)(2)(C) ‘does not

3

apply to facts unrelated to the expert opinions the witness will present.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

26 Advisory Comm. Notes to 2010 Amendments). As someone who knows what Holcomb looks

5

like, Dr. Braaton may authenticate a picture of Holcomb.
Nevertheless, the Court does not see how this portion of Dr. Braaton’s deposition is helpful

6
7

or probative. Dr. Braaton, as well as Holcomb, will be able to testify about Holcomb’s use of or

8

need for a cane. In fact, Holcomb himself could conceivably use the photo as a demonstrative aid

9

in describing how he uses or needs a can to enter or exit his automobile. However, it is unclear

10

how the photo aids Dr. Braaton’s testimony, or what purpose is served by having Dr. Braaton

11

describe the photo. Furthermore, when the Court ruled on Defendants’ October 2016 motion in

12

limine, it prohibited Dr. Braaton from offering an opinion that “Plaintiff most likely would have

13

used a cane and leaned on the door to get out of the car.” Admitting this testimony comes close to

14

violating the Court’s prior ruling. Therefore, given the potentially cumulative nature of the

15

testimony, the absence of any clear probative value to Dr. Braaton testifying about the photo, and

16

the Court’s prior in limine ruling, Defendants’ objection is sustained.

17

4.

18

In relevant part, Dr. Braaton testified:

19

Q:

20
21

Page 17:5 to Page 17:12

Do you think, when you say “pretty unsteady” is that something that you would expect a
lay person to be able to notice?

A:

22

Probably. Because I don't think he would be able to walk in a straight line. And he
would be probably swaying a little bit.

23

Q:

Okay.

24

A:

Swaying.

25

Parties’ Arguments

26

Defendants object that it is speculative about what a “lay person” might notice. Further,

27

the question refers to Dr. Braaton’s testimony that Holcomb would be “pretty unsteady” when

28

walking 15 feet with his hands clenched. This opinion was previously excluded by the Court.
6

1

Cutting out the excluded “context” of the passage is an attempt to circumvent the prior order.

2

Holcomb responds that there was no objection during the de bene esse deposition and thus,

3

there is no longer a way to reframe the question. Thus, the objection should be deemed waived.

4

Further, the testimony specifically describes Dr. Braaton’s observation of Holcomb’s gait.

5

Discussion

6

The Court does not find that the opinion is fatally speculative. A physician would have a

7

good idea about how noticeable or obvious a mobility impairment would be to an untrained eye.

8

Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the remainder of Defendants’ objection. The context of the

9

answer is highly important. The question is attempting to get a clarification regarding what Dr.

10

Braaton meant by “pretty unsteady,” and “pretty unsteady” referred to a line of questioning that

11

the Court has excluded. “Pretty unsteady” was not a generic description of Holcomb’s gait or

12

stability, it was a description of Holcomb’s ability to walk fifteen feet without a cane and with

13

clenched fists. Without the context, the question is confusing and misleading. Because the

14

context is excluded, this section will also be excluded. Defendants’ objection is sustained.

15

5.

16

Dr. Braaton testified in pertinent part:

17

Q:

Okay. So, again, would that be something that would be noticeable you think to a lay
person? I mean, the difficulty walking backwards?3

18
19

Page 18:21 to Page 19:3

A:

I think he would have been very unsteady on his feet walking backwards and most

20

people could have seen that.

21

Defendants’ Objections

22

Defendants object that the excerpt is speculation as to what a “lay person” might notice.

23

Holcomb responds that the Court has permitted Dr. Braaton to offer opinions about

24

Holcomb’s ability to walk backwards.

25

Discussion

26

The Court will overrule the objection. The obviousness or noticeability of a mobility

27

problem could be the subject of both lay opinions under Rule of Evidence 701 or expert opinions

28

3

Defense counsel objected that the question called for speculation.

7

1

under Rule of Evidence 702, depending on the nature of the mobility problem. As a physician

2

with experience concerning human mobility issues, Dr. Braaton would be aware of a number of

3

different mobility problems. Some mobility problems might be extremely subtle and require

4

specialized training to detect. E.g. Braaton Depo. at 29:23-30:6. Others might be extremely

5

obvious and require no training whatsoever. Dr. Braaton may discuss how clear or obvious

6

Holcomb’s mobility problems were.

7

6.

8

In pertinent part, Dr. Braaton testified:

Page 23:2 to Page 23:14

9

Q:

He’s no longer with your practice?

10

A:

He's at Kaiser. He makes a lot more money at Kaiser.

11

Q:

Okay. Fair enough. Let me back up before we get into this. Since the September 6

12

deposition, have you had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Boskovich?

13

A:

No.

14

Q:

Communicated with anybody from his office?

15

A:

Me personally, no, I have not.

16

Q:

Did you do anything to get ready for your testimony here today?

17

A:

No.

18

Parties’ Arguments

19

Defendants object that this testimony is irrelevant.

20

Holcomb responds that he cannot reframe the question, and no objections were made

21

during the de bene esse deposition. Moreover, the testimony at issue was elicited by Defendants.

22

Discussion

23

The Court agrees with Defendants that there appears to be no relevance to the questions

24

and answers that deal with Dr. Braaton’s communications with Holcomb’s counsel. The Court

25

will sustain the objection as to lines 5 to 15. However, the Court finds some relevance with

26

respect to 2 to 4. The “He” that is referenced is Travis Wolfe, Dr. Braaton’s former physician’s

27

assistant. That he is no longer with Dr. Braaton is relevant background information because

28

testimony concerning Wolfe and records that he created will be presented to the jury.
8

1

7.

2

Dr. Braaton in relevant part testified:

3

Q:

Page 28:7 to Page 28:20

Okay. Again, in that same time frame, May of 2012, would Mr. Holcomb have been able

4

to walk all the way to three to four feet behind the vehicle while holding his hands up with

5

clenched fists without assistance?

6

A:

With great difficulty.

7

Q:

But he was capable of doing that; correct?

8

A:

I mean, I would think he would have great difficulty walking.

9

Q:

But -- understood, having great difficulty. But he was capable of -- he was capable of

10

walking all the way to three to four feet behind the vehicle while holding his hands up with

11

clenched fists without assistance; correct?

12

A:

If he made it there without falling, yes, he was.

13

Parties’ Arguments

14

Defendants object that the testimony is beyond that of a treating physician. The excerpt

15

contradicts the Court’s prior ruling that Dr. Braaton could not testify about Holcomb’s ability to

16

walk with his hands up and fists clenched without assistance.

17

Holcomb replies that, in response to a question regarding clenched fists, all Dr. Braaton

18

was willing to say is that Holcomb would have had great difficulty walking. Thus, Dr. Braaton is

19

only rendering an opinion about walking, not clenched fists.

20

Discussion

21

The Court agrees with Defendants’ characterization of the issue. The Court has ruled that

22

opinions regarding Holcomb’s ability to walk without assistance with his hand up and fists

23

clenched were opinions that were not formed during the course Dr. Braaton’s treatment of

24

Holcomb. The excerpt at issue is expressly dealing with Holcomb walking with clenched fists.

25

Therefore, Defendants’ objection is sustained.

26

8.

27

In pertinent part, Dr. Braaton testified:

28

Q:

Page 28:21 to Page 29:22

Now, after walking three to four feet behind the car, if he were to walk backwards to the
9

driver’s side door, he would have had great difficulty; correct?

1
2

A:

Yes.

3

Q:

And that’s because patients who have difficulty heel toe ambulating also have difficulty

4
5

with toe heel ambulating; correct?
A:

6
7

Yeah. Well, he would have -- he couldn't propel off the front of his foot correctly. So
he would have had a lot of difficulty doing that.

Q:

8

That’s from the perspective of walking with people who we normally regard as having a
normal unimpaired stride; correct?

9

A:

Yes.

10

Q:

Now instead of trying to toe heel ambulating, he slid or shuffled his feet backwards. Now,

11

it would have been easier for him to back up to the driver’s side door moving in that

12

fashion; correct?

13

A:

Well, he would have -- that would be -- he might have been able to shuffle his legs

14

backwards somehow. But that would have been very noticeable and very – I think it

15

would have been difficult. It would have been high fall risk.

16

Q:

17
18

But it would have been easier to shuffle or slide his feet back than to try to toe heel
ambulate backwards; correct?

A:

I don't think he could have done that.

19

Parties’ Arguments

20

Defendants object that this passage goes beyond the scope of a treating physician and does

21
22
23

not relate to any observations Dr. Braaton made while treating Holcomb.
Holcomb responds that the testimony was elicited by Defendants and goes directly to his
ability to walk backward, which the Court has allowed.

24

Discussion

25

The Court finds that the testimony at 28:21 to 29:9 is admissible. This excerpt deals with

26

Holcomb’s ability to walk backwards from three to four feet behind his car. At the hearing on the

27

October MIL, the Court ruled that Dr. Braaton could testify about Holcomb’s ability to walk

28

backwards, as well as any risks from walking backwards, because Dr. Braaton had formed such
10

1

opinions during the course of his treatment of Holcomb. Therefore, the subject matter of the

2

question is not beyond the scope of Dr. Braaton’s testimony as a treating physician. Further, the

3

questions at 28:21 to 29:9 are related to and in the same form as the questions at 28:1 to 28:6,

4

which asked about Holcomb ability walk forward from the driver’s seat to three or four feet

5

behind his car without assistance. See Braaton Depo. 28:1-28:6. The parties agree that the

6

testimony at 28:1 to 28:6 is admissible. Given these considerations, Defendants’ objections to the

7

testimony at 28:21 to 29:9 are overruled.

8
9

With respect to the testimony at 29:10 to 29:22, that testimony discusses sliding or
shuffling feet, instead of toe-heel ambulation/walking. In an order following the October MIL

10

hearing, the Court noted that the nature of the tests administered and the corresponding results, the

11

treatment, and observations of Dr. Braaton were sufficient to show that Dr. Braaton had formed an

12

opinion about the ability of Holcomb to walk backwards. See Doc. No. 48 at 1 n.1. In his

13

depositions, Dr. Braaton testified in essence that the tests administered for walking forward also

14

reflect on a person’s ability to walk backward. See id. at 18:16-20, 30:19-25, 46:13-20. However,

15

Dr. Braaton indicated that he conducted heel-toe walking tests. See Braaton Depo. 11:15-19,

16

12:9-14. The Court is not aware of any tests administered by Dr. Braaton that involved the sliding

17

or shuffling of feet. As such, questions regarding shuffling or sliding appear to be hypothetical

18

questions beyond the scope of Dr. Braaton’s actual treatment. Hypothetical questions are

19

generally improper with respect to the expert opinions of non-retained treating physicians. See In

20

re C. R. Bard, 948 F.Supp.2d at 615 & n.3; Whitley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186430 at *11-*12.

21

Because there is an insufficient indication that Dr. Braaton formed any opinions during the course

22

of his treatment about Holcomb’s ability to shuffle or slide his feet, Defendants’ objections to the

23

testimony at 29:10 to 29:22 are sustained. Cf. Goodman, 644 F.3d at 826.

24

9.

25

Dr. Braaton testified in relevant part:

26

Q:

Page 29:23 to Page 30:18

Now, if he was moving backwards, shuffling or sliding his feet, in your opinion would that

27

have been noticeable to someone standing directly in front of him as opposed to several

28

feet away?
11

1

A:

I think -- well, I would have noticed it right away, standing in front of him. Because

2

you can just see that it's not normal. But if you're -- I can't say for an untrained

3

person, but probably it would be noticeable.

4

Q:

Well, if -- if an untrained person is standing right in front of him, face to face, not looking

5

at his feet but concentrated on his face and upper body, he wouldn't be noticing -- he

6

wouldn't be .in a position to notice if Mr. Holcomb was having difficulty sliding or

7

shuffling his feet backwards; correct?

8

A:

9

I don't know how to answer that except to say that I think his body would be
somewhat swaying a little bit from being unsteady on his feet when he was walking

10

backwards.

11

Parties’ Arguments

12

Defendants object the excerpt is speculative, does not relate to any observations Dr.

13

Braaton made and thus, is beyond the scope of a treating physician.

14
15

Holcomb argues that the excerpt goes directly to his ability to walk backwards and thus, is
admissible.

16

Discussion

17

The Court finds that this excerpt suffers from the same problem as the excerpts at 29:10 to

18

29:22. This excerpt relates to Holcomb’s ability to shuffle or slide backwards, it does not relate to

19

his ability to walk toe-heel backwards. As explained above, there is no indication that Dr. Braaton

20

formed an opinion about Holcomb’s ability to shuffle or slide. Therefore, the question is an

21

improper hypothetical to a non-retained treating physician. Defendants’ objection is sustained.

22

10.

23

Dr. Braaton testified in relevant part:

24

Q:

25
26

Page 33:25 to 34:13

Now, when you’re ambulating your balance, part of that, your ability to maintain your
balance, part of that is a function of stride length; correct?

A:

Well, stride length is part of it, yeah. Usually people with impaired balance shorten

27

their stride length because they feel more stable when they’re walking with a

28

shortened stride length.
12

1

Q:

2

When you shorten your stride length, you’re able to avoid falling over from losing balance;
correct?

3

A:

Not always, but it helps.

4

Q:

Okay. And in terms of walking or ambulating backwards, if you shorten your stride

5
6

length, that also helps maintain your balance; correct?
A:

That would.

7

Parties’ Arguments

8

Holcomb argues that this testimony violates the Court’s ruling on the October MIL. The

9
10

initial questions are not directed to walking backwards and thus, are outside the scope of a treating
physician.

11

Defendants argue that the excerpt is relevant and proper since it goes directly to the issue

12

of how someone with Holcomb’s condition can maintain his balance when walking forwards and

13

backwards by shortening their stride.

14

Discussion

15

Based on Holcomb’s objection, it may be necessary to reiterate or clarify the Court’s ruling

16

on the October MIL. As discussed above, the Court limited Dr. Braaton’s expert testimony to that

17

of a treating physician. Dr. Braaton may testify as to any opinions that he formed during the

18

course of his treatment of Holcomb. The October MIL identified 14 excerpts from Dr. Braaton’s

19

deposition. The Court found that all but one of Dr. Braaton’s opinions were formed outside the

20

course of his treatment of Holcomb. That one opinion involved Holcomb’s ability to walk

21

backwards. When the Court held that this one opinion was admissible because it was within the

22

scope of treating physician, the Court was not holding that Dr. Braaton could only express

23

opinions relating to Holcomb’s ability to walk backwards. The Court set a general rule, i.e.

24

opinions formed during the course of treatment are admissible, and then applied that rule to the 14

25

specific deposition excerpts that were challenged by Defendants.

26

With this clarification in mind, the Court is not satisfied that the excerpt is admissible. The

27

excerpts are generalized questions about stride length. Dr. Braaton stated that people with

28

impaired balance “usually shorten,” not “always shorten,” their stride length, and that a shortened
13

1

stride length does “not always” help people to avoid falling. The problem with the testimony is

2

twofold. First, the questions do not specifically relate to Holcomb or his particular condition. The

3

generalities mentioned by Dr. Braaton may apply to Holcomb or they may not. Second, there is

4

no indication that Dr. Braaton formed any opinions that a shortened stride length would help

5

Holcomb avoid falling. Therefore, the Court agrees with the objection that the testimony is

6

outside the scope of a treating physician. Plaintiff’s objections are sustained.

7

11.

8

In pertinent part, Dr. Braaton testified:

9

Q:

10

Page 34:14 to Page 39:11

As an orthopedist, it would be important to have an understanding of any physical injuries
your patient may have; correct?

11

A:

Yes.

12

Q

And as an orthopedist, if you observed any new physical injuries during an examination, it

13
14

would be your custom and practice to note that in your report of the examination; correct?
A:

I will say usually I focus on -- if I -- if I’m seeing a patient for a whole body review,

15

yes. If I’m seeing him for a specific body part,. like foot and ankle for Workmen's

16

Comp, which he was for a specific foot and ankle, so I would notice the other foot.

17

And I would examine that, but not necessarily comment on other injuries because I’m

18

contracted by Workmen’s Comp, if you will, to just take care of -- I can only see him

19

for X problem.

20

Q:

21
22

But if a patient complained of back or neck pain, it would have been your custom and
practice to note that in your report of the examination; correct?

A:

Not always. A lot of times I just tell him, you have got to go to your primary care

23

physician for that because I don’t really treat that. So I mean, occasionally I do. But

24

it’s not something I do all the time either.

25

Q:

Okay.

26

A:

And that would have been also something, you know, then is it a work-related injury

27

or not? And that's something I really don't usually evaluate either because I'm sort of

28

a consultant in the Workmen’s Comp for -- specifically for complex foot and ankle
14

1
2

problems.
Q:

Okay. I would like to take you back to Exhibit HH. Now, again, that's the visit where he
was seen by your physician’s assistant, Travis Wolfe; correct?

3
4

A:

Is this HH? HH, yeah. He was seen by Travis Wolfe, yes.

5

Q:

Yes. You have that in front of you?

6

A:

Yes, sir.

7

Q:

Now, according to this report, Mr. Holcomb complained of significant fatigue and muscle

8

weakness; correct?

9

A:

Yes.

10

Q:

It was noted that there was marked swelling for the anterior and lateral aspect of the ankle;

11

correct?

12

A:

Yes.

13

Q:

And it was also noted there was pain to palpation over most of his ankle?

14

A:

Yes, right.

15

Q:

Palpation, that's where the practitioner touches the ankle; correct?

16

A:

Yes.

17

Q:

And it was also noted that both hands were swollen?

18

A:

Yes.

19

Q:

Okay. And both feet were swollen?

20

A:

Yes.

21

Q:

Okay. Did -- was there any observation of any swelling on his wrists?

22

Objection:

23

A:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Well, I don’t know. The hands were. So I don’t know if the wrists were swollen or
not. I didn’t see him that day. So –

24
25

Q:

26

Objection:

27

A:

Well, that’s not noted in the note here.

28

Q:

Did he complain of pain or numbness in his wrists?

Okay. Did he complain of pain or numbness in his hands?
Objection, calls for speculation.

15

1

Objection:

2

A:

That’s not noted here either.

3

Q:

Did Mr. Holcomb indicate that he’d sustained any leg injuries recently?

4

Objection:

5

A:

That’s not – that’s not noted here either.

6

Q:

Okay. If he had complained of a leg injury since you were treating his ankle and foot,

7

The same objection.

Objection. Calls for speculation. The document speaks for itself.

that would have been something that would have been noted in the report; correct?

8

Objection:

9

A:

10

Calls for speculation.

Yeah. I didn’t see him that day. I would have probably noted it. And I would hope
that Travis would have, too.

11

Q:

That would have been the custom and practice of your office?

12

A:

In general, yes.

13

Q:

And that would be something required by the standard of care; correct?

14

A:

Uh-huh, yes.

15

Q:

Yes? Did Mr. Holcomb present with bruising anywhere that was observable?

16

Objection:

17

A:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Well, it’s not noted here on the physical exam on the parts that we examined. We

18

looked at his hands and feet. He was mostly -- he was talking about his hands and

19

feet mostly because he was concerned of the autoimmune reaction to the implant or

20

some kind of unknown autoimmune -- we don’t know what it was to, but he had an

21

autoimmune process of some sort going on.

22

Q:

23

If any bruises were observed on his hands or wrists, those would have been noted in the
record; correct?

24

A:

Well, I would -- I would -- I don’t know. I would think so.

25

Q:

And that would be within the standard of care; correct?

26

A:

Well, if Travis examined his hands and looked at his hands, he probably would have

27
28

noted that.
Q:

Okay. His hands and also if he noticed any bruising on his wrists; correct?
16

1

A:

Yeah. I don’t know how -- how long, if he had a long-sleeved shirt on or not. But

2

where they would see the wrist or not. But I think he probably would have noticed

3

that there were bruising and swelling on his hands.

4

Q:

5
6

And if he noticed that, it would have been the custom and practice to record that in the
report; correct?

A:

Yes.

7

Plaintiff’s Objection

8

Holcomb reiterates his objections made during the deposition that the questions call for

9
10

speculation because they require Dr. Braaton to speculate as to what Mr. Wolfe would have done.
Wolfe was not deposed, and Defendants cannot substitute speculative evidence for a deposition.

11

Defendants’ Response

12

Defendants argue that the excerpts are admissible for several reasons. First, much of the

13

testimony that Holcomb wishes to admit from Dr. Braaton is based on Dr. Braaton’s review of the

14

medical records. Holcomb cannot rely on the customs and records of Dr. Braaton’s office only

15

when it is beneficial for him to do so. Second, the questions go directly to the manner in which

16

Dr. Braaton and his physician’s assistants (on whom he relies) keep their records and what those

17

records mean. Third, it is well established that treating physicians can rely on the record of others

18

in their own offices when expressing opinions, as Dr. Braaton does repeatedly when testifying on

19

other matters. Fourth, Dr. Braaton did not speculate about how records for his office are kept,

20

rather he testified about the custom and practice of his office. Fifth, Dr. Braaton did not speculate

21

about whether Holcomb made certain complaints on the dates that Dr. Braaton did not examine

22

him. He responded that he did not conduct the examination and the records make no mention of

23

complaints or injuries. Sixth, the medical records made by Wolfe will be in evidence, and Dr.

24

Braaton’s testimony about what those records mean, the custom and practice in the industry, and

25

his office for recording complaints are all relevant to Dr. Braaton’s testimony and in

26

understanding the medical records. Seventh, the excerpts were questions on cross-examination

27

after Holcomb’s counsel opened the door to Dr. Braaton relying on medical records from his

28

facility to support his opinions.
17

1

Discussion

2

There is no dispute that Dr. Braaton can rely on the medical records from his office, even if

3

a physician’s assistant made a particular record.4 It also appears to be undisputed that medical

4

records from Dr. Braaton will be admitted into evidence. Thus, questions to Dr. Braaton regarding

5

the meaning of the records or the custom and practice for keeping and creating those medical

6

records are relevant and appropriate. In terms of Holcomb’s objections that questions call for

7

speculation, the answers given were not speculation. Cf. Ninth Circuit Mode Instruction 1.9

8

“What Is Evidence” (stating inter alia that a witness’s sworn testimony is evidence); Ninth Circuit

9

Model Instruction 1.10 “What Is Not Evidence” (stating inter alia that an attorney’s question is

10

not evidence). Dr. Braaton either stated that he did not know, that there was no notation in the

11

record on the subject, or explained situations in which a complaint that was given may not actually

12

be noted. Therefore, Holcomb’s objections are generally overruled.

13

However, the Court is concerned about excerpts that discuss the standard of care. The

14

standard of care is generally a negligence concept and it is not at issue in this case. What is at

15

issue is the particular practices and customs of Dr. Braaton’s office. To the Court’s knowledge

16

there is no expert testimony that criticizes Dr. Braaton’s record keeping practices as falling below

17

the standard of care.5 The Court does not wish to inject potentially confusing legal concepts and

18

standards that are not at issue. It is enough for the jury to hear Dr. Braaton describe the custom

19

and practices of his office, without the need for discussing “the standard of care.” Therefore,

20

questions and answers relating to the standard of care (38:3-5, 38:22-25) will not be permitted

21

under Rule of Evidence 403.

22

12.

23

Dr. Braaton testified in relevant part:

24

Q:

Page 40:17 to 41:12

If Mr. Holcomb had told you or Mr. Wolfe in May of 2012 that he’s been injured in an

25
26
27
28

4

Physician’s assistants work under the direct supervision of a licensed medical doctor. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
3502; Duel v. Latino Health Servs. Med. Grp., 2002 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 10814, *9-*10 (Nov. 21, 2002); see also
Walker v. Bakersfield Family Med. Grp., 2009 Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 5863, *8 (July 22, 2009).
5

Inferentially, if there was an expert who opined that Dr. Braaton’s records did not meet the standard of care, a jury
might consider that fact in assessing the credibility of Dr. Braaton’s records and testimony.

18

1

incident with the police, that would have been reflected in the May 11, 2012 medical

2

report; correct?

3

Objection:

4

A:

Calls for speculation.

I didn’t see him and so I don’t know if Travis would have included it or not. He may

5

or may not have, if he just mentioned it in passing and wasn’t relating it to some

6

specific physical problem. So I mean, I can’t really -- I can’t answer that question.

7

Q:

Well, putting Travis aside, had Mr. Holcomb told you that he’s been injured in an

8

incident with the police where he sustained an injury, is that something you would have

9

included in your report?

10

A:

If there were specific physical findings that I was evaluating, I would have included it.

11

Q:

And the May 11, 2012 report doesn’t say anything about an incident with the police;

12
13

correct?
A:

No, it does not.

14

Parties’ Arguments

15

Holcomb objects that the question calls for speculation and irrelevant information. Dr.

16
17

Braaton did not write the note, so his personal practice is irrelevant.
Defendants respond that the question is relevant because it goes directly to the issue of

18

record keeping in Dr. Braaton’s office. It allows the jury to conclude that that the absence of any

19

statement by Holcomb within the medical records is at least some evidence that Holcomb did not

20

suffer any of those injuries. Although Holcomb is correct that the Dr. Braaton did not write the

21

note, the custom and practice in the industry is to record specific physical findings or complaints,

22

and this was the practice in Dr. Braaton’s office.

23

Discussion

24

The Court finds that parts of the excerpts are admissible and parts are not. Dr. Braaton

25

explained that he did not see Holcomb, did not know how (if at all) Holcomb may have mentioned

26

the incident or complaints about pain from the incident, and that Wolfe may or may not have

27

included Holcomb’s information (if any) concerning the May 7 incident. This question and

28

answer are similar to the above questions regarding the nature of record keeping in Dr. Braaton’s
19

1

office. Therefore, Pages 40:17 to Pages 41:2 are admissible.

2

Dr. Braaton was also asked whether the medical records for May 11, 2012, indicate that

3

Holcomb said anything about the May 7 incident, to which he replied it does not. That question is

4

similar to other admissible questions concerning the contents of the medical record for May 11,

5

2012. Having Dr. Braaton testify as to the record’s content is appropriate. Therefore, lines 41:10

6

to 41:12 are admissible.

7

However, the excerpt is centered on the medical record for May 11, 2012. Dr. Braaton did

8

not see Holcomb on that date, but did provide answers that related to the practice of the office.

9

Injecting information about what Dr. Braaton might have done if he had seen Holcomb on May 11

10

is a confusing and misleading hypothetical that goes beyond the May 11 excerpt. Therefore,

11

Holcomb’s objections to lines 41:3 to 41:9, which asks Dr. Braaton what he would have done, are

12

sustained.

13

13.

14

In pertinent part, Dr. Braaton testified:

15

Q:

Page 45:16-45:6

Can you give me an approximation of what the odds were that he would have a miraculous

16

recovery on May the 7th of 2012, been able to walk normally, clench his fists, walk

17

backwards and then come into you a month later and then be right back where he was

18

before?6

19

A:

He was a pretty -- in terms of his examination, if you look back through the notes, up

20

until he got on this new medicine, he was pretty stable in his exam. It wasn't really

21

altering that much in terms of his ability to walk and pain. In fact, it was kind of

22

getting progressively worse at times. So I would not have expected there to be any

23

difference from -- in six to nine months.

24

Parties’ Arguments

25

Defendants object that the Court has excluded testimony about how Holcomb could

26

function “with clenched fists.” The testimony relates to the particular facts of this case, and not to

27

any observations that Dr. Braaton made, thus, it is beyond the scope of a treating physician.

28

6

Defense counsel objected that the answer called for speculation.

20

1

Finally, to the extent that Dr. Braaton’s testimony does not relate to excluded material, it is non-

2

responsive because the question specifically included excluded issues.

3

Holcomb responds that Defendants have brought into issue Dr. Braaton’s ability to opine

4

on Holcomb’s condition on the date of the incident because Holcomb was not seen until a date

5

after the incident. The question simply asks Dr. Braaton to explain prior testimony elicited by

6

Defendants. Further, it is the answer that is the evidence, not the question, and the answer does

7

not mention clenched fists, rather, it mentions symptoms and the ability to walk.

8

Discussion

9

The Court will overrule Defendants’ objection. In the questions immediately preceding

10

this excerpt, Dr. Braaton confirmed that, in response to questions by defense counsel, he had not

11

seen Holcomb on May 7, 2012 (the date of the incident). See Braaton Depo. 45:12-15. The

12

excerpt now at issue is clearly attempting to obtain evidence concerning Holcomb’s physical

13

condition on the date of the incident in order to address the questions posed by defense counsel. It

14

is an appropriate inquiry. Further, Holcomb was under Dr. Braaton’s care as of May 7, 2012. The

15

question mentions Holcomb’s ability to walk forwards and his ability to walk backwards, both of

16

which are areas in which Dr. Braaton may offer opinions. Dr. Braaton’s answer to the question is

17

expressly based on examinations of Holcomb, and the answer dealt with Holcomb’s ability to

18

walk and the pain Holcomb experienced, which are proper treating physician opinions. It is true

19

that the question mentions clenched fists, but there is no elaboration regarding clenched fists in the

20

question, and Dr. Braaton does not mention clenched fists in his answer. Cf. Ninth Circuit Mode

21

Instruction 1.9 “What Is Evidence” (stating inter alia that a witness’s sworn testimony is

22

evidence); Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 1.10 “What Is Not Evidence” (stating inter alia that an

23

attorney’s question is not evidence). Again, Dr. Braaton’s answer is in terms of examinations of

24

Holcomb. The phrase “clench his fists” is simply part of a string of conditions/actions, it does not

25

modify “walk normally” or “walk backwards.” That is, the phrase is a stand-alone condition, and

26

it does not appear to be material to the question or, more importantly, the response. The phrase’s

27

inclusion in the question is not so confusing, misleading, or prejudicial as to warrant exclusion of

28

the entire excerpt under Rule of Evidence 403.
21

1

14.

2

Dr. Braaton testified in relevant part:

3

Q:

4

Page 46:6 to 46:12

And when you said that it was stable, you meant that it was -- his condition was essentially
unchanged?

5

A:

Yes.

6

Q:

Okay.

7

A:

That's why I put him permanent and disabled in the June visit.

8

Parties’ Arguments

9

Defendants object that any testimony regarding clenched fists has been excluded. The

10

foundational question to which the question relates deals with Holcomb’s ability to walk

11

backwards and clench his fists. Merely cutting off the previous excluded question is an attempt to

12

circumvent the court’s prior ruling. If the excluded question is omitted, the question and answer

13

make no sense. Further, the question relates to the particular facts of this case and not any

14

observations that Dr. Braaton made while treating Holcomb.

15
16

Holcomb argues that Dr. Braaton is simply stating that Holcomb’s condition was the same
as prior visits.

17

Discussion

18

The Court will overrule the objections. Defendants are correct that this excerpt is related

19

to the excerpts discussed in the previous section (Page 45:16 to Page 46:5). However, the Court

20

has found the preceding excerpt to be admissible. The entire sequence, lines 45:16 to 46:12, is

21

simply conveying the idea that Holcomb’s condition was essentially static, unchanged, or “stable”

22

on or about May 7, 2012. Therefore, for the same reasons that Page 45:16 to Page 46:5 are

23

admissible, lines 46:6 to 46:12 are admissible.

24
25
26

CONCLUSION
After review, some of the disputed excerpts are admissible and some are not. The parties

27

will modify the video deposition of Dr. Braaton to reflect the rulings made by the Court, including

28

removal of objections, where appropriate. If the video deposition cannot be easily modified, the
22

1

parties may simply read the relevant excerpt themselves. There has now been extensive briefing

2

and objections concerning Dr. Braaton. As far as the Court is concerned, all issues concerning Dr.

3

Braaton have been resolved. The Court anticipates no for further issues concerning Dr. Braaton’s

4

de bene esse deposition.

5
6

ORDER

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9

Defendants’ objections to deposition excerpts 15:16-16:5, 17:5-17:12, 23:5 to 23:15, 28:728:20, and 29:10-30:18 are SUSTAINED and those excerpts are EXCLUDED from trial;

10

2.

Defendants’ objections are otherwise OVERRULED;

11

3.

Plaintiff’s objections to deposition excerpts 33:25 to 34:13, 38:3-5, 38:22-25, and 41:3 to

12
13

41:9 are SUSTAINED and those excerpts are EXCLUDED from trial; and
4.

Plaintiff’s objections are otherwise OVERRULED.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23