United States of America et al v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center et al

Filing 379

ORDER denying 298 Motion to Strike Testimony of Ian Dew; denying 305 Motion to Strike Testimony of Donald Moran. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 10/24/2013. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
USA and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:09-cv-1002-Orl-31TBS

HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER and HALIFAX STAFFING,
INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Ian Dew (Doc. 298) filed by the Defendants (henceforth, collectively, “Halifax”),
the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Donald Moran (Doc. 305) filed by the United States of
America (henceforth, the “Government”), and the responses in opposition (Doc. 320, 327) to those
motions.
In greatly simplified terms, the Government contends in this case that, inter alia, Halifax
violated the Stark Law by submitting Medicare claims for services rendered pursuant to a referral
from a physician with an improper financial relationship with Halifax. Ian Dew (henceforth,
“Dew”) was hired by the Government to compile a database of Medicare claims submitted by
Halifax in which one of the physicians with an allegedly improper financial relationship was listed
as an attending or operating physician on the Medicare claim form. Donald Moran (henceforth,
“Moran”) was hired by Halifax to opine on the Medicare claims process, and more particularly on
the issue of whether the fact that a particular physician’s name appears as an attending or

operating physician on a Medicare claim form establishes that the service at issue was performed
pursuant to a referral from that physician.
Dew purports to be an expert in database creation and manipulation, while Moran purports
to be an expert on the processing of health insurance claims. Neither side takes issue with the
qualifications of the other’s expert in these areas. Rather, Halifax argues that Dew lacks the legal
expertise needed to establish that the claims included in his database resulted from the type of
referrals that the Stark Act prohibits, while the Government argues that Moran should not be
allowed to opine on the evidentiary effect of including a physician’s name at particular locations
on a Medicare claim form.
Both experts possess knowledge about complex subjects – database creation and
manipulation on the one hand, and the background, evolution, and use of Medicare claims forms
on the other – that would likely be of assistance to the jury in this case. And both experts’ efforts
could possibly be rendered moot, depending upon the resolution of the legal issue as to whether
physicians listed as “operating” or “attending” on a Medicare claim form are necessarily referring
physicians for purposes of the Stark Law. As that issue has yet to be resolved, the Court finds no
grounds to exclude either witness.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ian Dew (Doc. 298) and the
Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Donald Moran (Doc. 305) are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 24, 2013.

Copies furnished to:

-2-

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-