Richardson v. Sisto et al

Filing 132

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 8/16/2013 DENYING Plaintiff's 87 Motion in Limine No. 5. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FORREST M. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

J. MENDEZ,

11

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00025-GEB-EFB
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
IN LIMINE NO. 5*

12
13

Plaintiff seeks to exclude “any testimony or argument from or

14

related to [Plaintiff’s] treating physicians to the extent that such

15

testimony or argument purports to link [Plaintiff’s] complaints of

16

injuries from the subject incident with the possibility of litigation

17

over those injuries or that incident.” (Pl.’s Mot. in Limine No. 5,

18

1:20-23, ECF No. 87.) Plaintiff indicates that “[a]t least one of

19

[Plaintiff’s treating] physicians, Dr. Jason Huffman, has remarked in

20

his notes that he believes that [Plaintiff’s] medical complaints of

21

injuries following that incident may be motivated at least in part by

22

the fact that [Plaintiff] has filed claims against CDCR officials . . .

23

arising from this incident[,]” and argues that “[s]uch opinions are

24

inadmissible as lacking in foundation and unduly prejudicial.” (Id. at

25

2:9-13.) Plaintiff further argues:
There is no basis upon which a physician can
conclude, to a reasonable degree of medical

26
27
28

*

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

certainty, that a patient’s injuries are motivated
by litigation. To be sure, it might be permissible
for a physician to opine on the degree of pain or
other effects that might be reasonably attributed
to a physical injury, or to render an opinion as to
whether
a
particular
patient’s
subjective
complaints are out of the ordinary or could be
exaggerated in light of the clinical findings the
physician makes about the patient’s physical
injuries.
However,
the
supposed
underlying
motivation for those alleged disparities or
exaggerations – such as the fact that the patient
is involved in litigation – is beyond the
physician’s expertise and is without foundation for
him or her to opine about. Physicians are supposed
to diagnose and treat injuries and can reasonably
be expected to consider whether complaints are
exaggerated, but they should not be permitted to
formulate opinions about the alleged reasons for
any purported exaggeration by the patient. The
latter is wholly outside their function and
expertise.

12
13

(Id. at 3:20-4:2.)

14

Defendant rejoins:

15

As Plaintiff’s former treating physician, Dr.
Huffman may present his opinion of causation,
diagnosis and prognosis derived from his treatment
of Plaintiff. Defendant disclosed Dr. Huffman as an
un-retained expert. He will not be testifying
pursuant to Rule 702, but rather as a percipient
witness. Dr. Huffman’s opinions were formed during
the course of his evaluation and he may testify as
to his observations made during the same.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The evidence and testimony of Dr. Huffman’s
opinion is not barred by Rule 403. The probative
value of such testimony far outweighs the danger of
undue prejudice or misleading the jury. Plaintiff
claims to have suffered permanent injuries to his
back (and right knee and shoulder) as a result of
the incident on February 13, 2007. Defendant
submits that Plaintiff’s complaints were not
attributable to the subject incident. . . . Dr.
Huffman was the first orthopedist to evaluate
Plaintiff after the incident. . . . Thus, the
opinion of Dr. Huffman, and any other treating
physician,
as
to
causation,
diagnosis,
and
prognosis derived from the treatment of Plaintiff
has high probative value.
(Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mots. in Limine 13:12-14:1, ECF No. 92.)
2

1

Since it is unclear what precise evidence is involved in this

2

motion, it is denied. See Weiss v. La Suisse, Soc’y D’Assurances Sur La

3

Vie, 293 F. Supp. 2d 397, 407-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying motion to

4

exclude

5

particular documents or testimony have been identified in the motion”);

6

see also Lego v. Stratos Int’l, Inc., No. C 02-03743 JW, 2004 WL

7

5518162, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2004) (denying in limine motion

8

“because the requested relief is too vague”).

9

Dated:

evidence

for

a

“lack[]

of

specificity[,]”

stating

August 16, 2013

10
11
12

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

“[n]o