Thornton et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 21

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's request for alternative relief. Discovery is reopened for sixty (60) days from the date of this Order for two limited purposes: (1) the parties are directed to arrange and ca rry out Defendant's deposition of Dr. Ronald Gross, and (2) Defendant is directed to supplement and furnish its expert witness report. The parties are directed to notify the court once these two limited purposes are accomplished. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 02/05/2013. (thb)

IN THE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COI'RT FOR THE
SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTADIVISION

LARRY THORNTON and
LYNDA GRISBY-THORNTON,
r-Ld-LrlL-LrrD,

*

- 1' , ] - T n A
1

a\7

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMER]CA,
Defendant .

ORDER

pending

Presentfy
for

motion

Factual

In

The

February
Medicaf

ThornLon's
were

Center

in

Augusta,
removed

and

(Compl.

Georqia.
tested

poJyps and subsequenLly informed

nerformecl on Aoril

Augusra

e m p lo y e e s a c L h e A u g u s t a V e L e r a n s

employees

VA

colon

Mr.

Upon due consideracion,

13. )

("Augusta VA") conducted a colonoscopy

Thornton

cancerous.

surgery.

Motion

BACKGROUND

2 0 0 9 , m e dl c a l

Larry

Augusta

Defendant's

Background

A.

Pfaintiff

is

Court

herebY DENIED.

is

I.

Affalrs

the

(Doc. no '

Summary Judgment.

this

before

(Id.)

An
2A09,

29,

(Id,

a

fever'

ran

Thornton

VA performed

initiaf

a

second

surgery

and

surgery

on
to

5I 5. )
of

Mr.

him Lhal

they

two

was scheduled

7.)

llq 5'

Following
May 2,

Look

on

for

2009,

and
that
the

potential

at

Ieakage

the

of

site

(Id.

abdomlnaf washout.
t-he cor^on.l qrrr.rcr\/-

placed

in

-ar.

raarri

/ l rd .
v

2009 -

10,

\/

\

\rPE.LaL-l\Jr.r

array

r^cf

nr o 9 -l
r en

of

6.rhi-^c
B.
Tn

nleim
')\

fo

the

^ , ! F - r, -u a rlr-h

Ltt

Pu!

a..nart
s^Ps!

?Q

L

basis

for

copies

of pertinent

On

the

July

:

20,

alleging

SecLion

rhhr^hri:r6

f^r

m^n

r6^6/al

6 \,

/l:mr^ae

second

ql

surgical

nroxim:fclrz

r:Arra^r

IJ-J^r-'LqLLrJ

pain,

JUly

(Id.

surgery.
and

was

^-

Th^rh-^-

initial

: nrd
Jr u

surgery

Lhird

Vr

r,he first

medical

expenses,

( T d . 9 l 9 l1 4 - 1 5 . )

irfs

-

Gr.rss.

medical
2OII,

Pla inLiffs

Federal

Tort

medica.I

:r

(doc.

a

his

curricufum

Claims Act

ma-Lpractice

2 6 7 5 r e q * - - L e s a clainant
to first
:- , n da
c y p r l o r to brinq.i-nq suit

I1 ,

ex.

incfuded

the

F.On

and

the

Complainr

his
the

against

28 U.S.C.

e m p lo y e e s

present
aqainst

and

L7, Ex.2,)

( F T C A ),
by

fS'

('tCV");

vitae

a

cfaim

Plaintif

nn'r'nr

(See Doc. no.
filed

no.

standardlzed

I a*l ar

evnlaininc

records.

administrarive

Plaintiffs
claim:

Gross's

an

Affairs

2675.1

s1'r.iar\r.

Dr.

nresented

Veterans
S

rl rim

claim;

Defendant under the
2611,-2680
,

rna.i

his

administrative

their

Q^nAl-l

nr

L,

of

U.S.C,

1 - , ^ r - tn s Y r a
:. !
/

form;

He was

norfnrmcd

Plairr

20-n-

Denartment

in

followinq

10-11. )

a

he

History

L !r,rv!

ry

and

r'li cnhr

:-.1 losc consortium.

senrember
u

irrcnrIrz

After

worsened

damages. such as physical

Procedural

!rr

\/A

thaL

alfege

wclc

wide

^',^,,ct-:

2 aL 8.)

an

(CompI. ${

two months after

Plaintiffs

12,)

Ex.

coma and ultjmately

Th^

over

17,

perform

and

condition

Thornton'S

complications.

induced

an

operation

Doc. no.

91 8;

Mr.

addiriona I

suffered

initial

the

of

cLaim
Unlted

SS
the

to the
States

from

affidavit
for

(Doc.

VA.

Augusta

(comp].,

cfaim

(comp.L., exs,

records

O n N o v e m b e r 1 1,
issued

jffs

20L2, as the

last

for

!v!

2 A 1 1,

20L2.

(Doc.

deadllne

of

Unired

the

of

fast

anril

expert

no.

However,

close

report

(Doc. no.

9.)

discovery

of

reporLl

Lo June

deadline

Pfaintiffs'

remained in

9,

an expert

discovery.

Defendant's

2072,

Judge

March 10, 201'2, as the

extended the

March 10,

basis

St.aLes lvlagistrate

,.,i-hacc

close

11, )

and the

2-19) .

order

and

sworn

as we.L1 as Mr. Thornton's

Defendant Lo lurnish

day for

Revised Scheduling
1,6, 2012,

€X. 1),

a

attached

opinions

€..r^icL

f^

2A12, as the

and May 2,

his

which set

Order,

a Schedufing
plai-f

r - jy ar r
uu

Pfaintiffs

1. )

Gross explaining

Dr.

Plaintiffs'

medica]

no.

full-

to

May 24,
reporL

expert
force

A

and effect.

(rd. )
8,

On February
fi rst
expert

20L2,

i n r e r r o c a To r i e c e r d
!vYsLv!rvv

whi,ch afso

disclosures

r-laarr v

r::ll

the

opinions

erpert

,.<,dA-a.l

as

hw

.lF

an

and treir

Defendant's

Gross as their
filed

initial,
as

Gross

their

requested "the name, address, and telephone
you
your kno!.ifedge, information
or be]lef,

$'' l-.6ec

ey6o.r

Dr.

Dr.

identifled

clearfy

2 The elqhth
interrogatory
number of each person who to

idertified

to

20, 20L2, Plaintiffs

On February

witness.2

responded

Pl-aintiffs

>-

bases.

a^n,-'i

r:r.c<'

-rrFl

"

as

(Doc. no.

17.

o:se

s€€

n

weII

Ex.

aS,he

srtbsLance

4 S B. )

AIIidaviL

oI

of

Plaintiffs
Same

WiEh

(Id,)
The record does not show
infornation,"
attached CV and identifying
interrogat.ory
were attached to Plaintiffs'
or CV
that Dr, Gross's affidavit
(See Doc. no, 1?, trx. 4. )
was previ ols-Ly
Dr, Grossts affidav'f
responses,
but noLh-Lnq in rhe record shows
aLLached to !ne Compla'nc (compL/ ex. I),
L h a t D r . C r o s s ' s C V w a s a L L a c h e d t o t h e C o m p l a ln L ( q = c o m p . , e x s . 1 - 1 9 ) .

I

dnnrrmoni

-,
/ r.ai ni-i

aL f_ l - f\ L7 Jl i " 6 . i
J
e

f Fc

n-

^s

.ii.l

noj-

Grnqq'q

f n r m' a ' q tl- ]l \ /
t

hnr^'orror

rFnr\r-

F'.nFrr_

hr,,

^L
f u-rr i r>rr
r rrrn

d

Varr-h

iha

l0-

i ef\/

f ho

2012 deadline.
On
- .d.r'ren- e x r l e r! f
c^vE

L

disclosrtre

rn.\\req f .\

Tn

(Doc.

26.
rFooFn

in

to

opposition
q.,r-

regardi-:rg their

expert,

In

13,

Dr.

f)r.

this

While

i,,nnmarr
J L.\-r9 r.rsr r - t

case
rha

-

nont-

7. )

On June 28,

statemenL

of

(Doc. nos.

2,

iCS

OWn

20L2,

material
16,

I1 .)

in'ornation

2012,

Defendant

is
r>

DI SCUSSION

to

address

before
l

i --,ra

is

the

Court

is

whether

enLi Lfed
lhe fourch oisclosure,
of Ronafd Gross,
stated:
"See Affidavit
(Doc. no. 1'7, Ey^.3 n 4.)
n pLalntiffs

amend

(Doc. no. 20. )

matter

first

CiviI

Of

Defendant

c'rnn'arcnl-al

II

The

RUIe

and

on July

Gross.a

eal-

alternative,

motion.
derl

to

Fedefal

and

brief

far

GfOSS

1 at

Ex,

nrorri

in

the

r'lanosa

Defendant's

Pla.i n-iffc

brjet.

a reply

filed

f .

motion

failed

fo r-.1

13.)

response

a

filed

r .vltn ri 9 r r
u
r n

no.

(Doc. no.

report,

a

Plaintiffs

rcr"en- s

cii sr-nvcrrr

!Lvyrrr

Plaintiffs
facts

lcrrri

filed

Defendant

r-on-cndi nr-r fha'

Procedure

expert

2A12,

5,

June

decislonaf
on
Dr.

a

mot.ron

D u"u'ra

! y

Gross may

"D.isclosure
M. D. , filed

FxperE
of
Lrlth the

T e s c i m o n y ,"
CompLai:rt. "

administrative
c1aim, which
documents from their
attached
The attached cV sets
at IO-28,)
included Dr. Gross's CV, (Doc. no. 17, Ez,2
in detail,
as well as a List of publications
fonth Dr. cross's qualifications
(See id.)
Plaintiffs
afso expfained that
produced by Dr. cross since 1979.
as an experL witness '1 El-e prev'ous four years.
Dr. Cross had not tesLified
(Doc. no. 16 at 2 n.1.)
sent an
AdditionalLy,
on June 2I, 2412, P.Iaintiffs
Lo Defenoanc wh-ch provioeo a sLacenent o- Dr. Cross's colpensaL.ron -Ln
ema-L(Doc. no. 2A, Ev'. 2.)
this matter.

an

F).neri

r-l a I n

guv'

law5

n r nv:^ r ' i m aq- L s
e
rLL
f

cqa r L s e
v uJr

because

axne.t
!^y!!

*5

4360618. at

wheLher

v.

Ga. Sept.

proximate

omitted)

808 (11th Cir.
D qrLuLLo y
!

exc.Iuded for

lay

2006)).

-...jrrme-jI uvvrLLrrrL

failure

the

Lo

address the Rufe 26 inquiry

Of

medigal

- -- -amony

1-ea1-

professiona.L
n*e

oenerallv

ken

Che

No. 2:07-CV-044,

for

aVelage

2008 WL

("In

Georqia'

medical

care

was performed

'f ho

nl

-ri nl

i ff

the

law
ln

mrrqr

and rmay nor

cause,

re.Iy on his

avoid

summary judgment. '"

Suggs v.

U.S.,

199 Fed. Appx'

Because resolution
donan.]c

a

to

opinions

(quoting

estabfish

2008)

24,

Lo estabfish

r-he

U.S.,

manner.

and

is

ZWrren

to

affeged

the

r.1Ai,-n.r

skillful

own staremenrs

See

in

order

evidence

i1i117rz

F;nfrrftq

that

ordinarily

(citation

n

est:bIish

Avnarl-

a presumption

recognizes

tesrimony

(S.D.

rhe

hacause

ro

actiOnS.

("In

nf

P-a'nriffs'

cr^q<

nr

nlrinFiff

Efuellen

accord

layperson.");

nr:r-l- jCe

(2003)

],.^'.,1a.lda

L

of

-as-inonrz

aynart

ral

500

of

f l_e

r-:rceal

qPnec r a fr! 4 s s I i z o r l
- a
J
ur

t-ho

nf

i Tonv

n-annndc-:nr-c

3

question

the

n sY
i r ru r
r La r r l ! ! YrE rc n s - a

mo.li-e1

498,

^ f ^
a^ci Lhr o l r ,

-^r-----i^^
marpractfce

fcr

i.'

bv
!_l

fesf

-orrrri -oq

ov er n! s 4 r J l l r r
e 4a
Y r v

rziahilifrz

fhq

case.

exne--

Thompson, 216 Ga.

n!r ovx i m ra q eL s
^ tr t r
P

an

chis

fl^e

t

.-a,ts^f ion

y!

v.

'non

q

reqf

Gve o r o it u a
ur !
Y

'n

wirnasq

nr

comply

r.rl^atha-

with

of

Defendant's

Dla:niiFFe,

Rule

26,

che

804,

motion

F5lnart

Court

iS

wj 1l

first.

"Ar action oro*ghc u'tder Lhe f'TCA is governed by Lhe faw oI Lhe sLaLe
BoaLWr-LghL . U.S./ No. 2:08v
where Ehe neqLigenL acr o- on'ssion occLrrred."
Stone v.
cv-030, 2009 wL 3151156' at *4 (s.D. Ga' Sept. 29, 2AA9) (citing
clalm stems from
2004)).
As Plaintiffs'
U,S., 3?3 F.3d 1129, 1130 (11th cir.
Lhe law of Georq-a
occurred in A*gusEa, Georgia,
evenLs wnich allegedly
ooverns this action,

A.

Eederal

LJ
L iA<

nt

r^

r-ri^l

- F Inv.! - f
e ,
!

witness

is

are

-avnart-'

-haea

court

the

h !!u .
ri r r^ ] , , u l

in

i , ,^
' ^ 9

nnrninr.

anrl

or

F|

lro
L rr - L

'6lt\

+

--,
r r d,y

/2i

-ha

hrr

sione.l

,,--^

l-.^

/q\

reqU_Lf

eS

iane

aL

R.

Eed.
far

Lhe

times

Civ.

rhd

e

di

nf

provide

expert

such a report

"A party

and

P.

rv fi nvl : r iq L r L r r Y
z
I nr

Lhe

concenLs of

Rufe 26(a) (2) (B) (i)-(vi).

-rr c/^ osures

wrt',]ass--i'

empfoyed to

specjalfy

The required

case,"

orders. "
c:nat-

glrvqrrrr

--nren:re.l

the

delineated

t

requi -es

26ia) 12) lA)

, . r L ,' r ^ - -rw
cJ

,anrr
J

the

each experL wicness "must be accompanied by a

one reLajned

test-lmony in

Rule
af

governs

26la) 12)

Procedure

irlenrirrr

,3vner

of
L

Expert

evidence.

rho

n-pcFnf

thaL disclosure
r"'-i t-l-on

Civif

experr

diQ/-lnea

+n

Plaintiffs'

of

Rufe
of

disclosure
^irf
Po,

of

Exclusion

in

Lhe

sequence

f:i

_tr'lcq

I i nn

fo

rnat

37 (c)

Rule

26(a) 12) lD) .

qr-ot,orrr

must make

:rd

arl-arq

mele

Fxnerf

discLosures.
it

Here,
i,,lcrj- if rz

tuLrrLrLy

be disputed

cannot
l -L F i r

of

atinFri-

26(a) (2) (A) when they
witness

in

Defendant's
is

also

6 soo
'

their

clearly
initlaf

inrerrogatories.5

undj spuEed that

.rrrra

aoiF,s 2-r

:.^

that

w'rness

Plaintiffs
'".I

identified

SaLiSf

Dr.

disc.Iosures
This

Plaintiffs

.^--acn.-.li-.'

disclosed
action

of

the
Rufe

Gross as an expert
and

disclosure

responses

was timefy.t

were requj red

to

provide

to
IL
an

-ax-.

respo-rses rhar: idcnLilied
and inLerrogaLory
discfosLres
.fhe init'al
in February
2072, pri or !o che
experL ujere provided
Gross as Pfa-nLi-fs'
Dr.
P.
the
Court.
See
Fed.
R.
Civ.
imposed
oy
2072
deadLine
1C,
March
'lhese
writ'ng,
signed,
and
were
a.Iso "idisc.Losures
26\a) 12) (A), (D) .
by Ru-e 2((a\ (4\ '
as required
served"

F."r\art

'nr

renorf

6^t-

^

c m n l! vn r ry a vr . l
L

lra^

fo

rrtLP

| inn

nJ h,rl J c i rL-vi ra nr
r
ur
r -

j -F s - i m o n \ /

Dr.

Rufe 26(a) (2) (B),

under

mnqr

tre

;n

(2)

and

the

qI nue c : ^l r r f. '
J / u
ar

(1)

issues:

effect

to

whether
Defendant

any viofation

oI

y

Therefofe,

caSe.

reporL

expert

Gross's

he

because

r : o n q i c l e L -e u
r !d

the

two

add-ress on.Iy

sect ions

furnished

PfaintiEfs

:nr_l

evna-l

26(a) (2) (B)

Rule

under

Gross

nro,ri cle

following

the

fr,

of

Ru]e 26 (a) under Rule 37 (c) .
7. RuIe 26(a) (2) (B):

^n

a . l r n p! r -

\ , r ii r a q q

uAIJr

(Doc.

Ex.

13,

no.

Complaint

(compl .,

referenced

Dr.

(id.,

disclosures

The Courr
in

ex.

rejecls

the

-he

Dr.

r , r . rI r . r - i
l / v - L - L -rL l L t
d

counsel

.r,1- ^^^I
lll-LgPsLrr

in

Decatur.

(1)

in

Gross as part

of

occasions:

from Dr.
l'7,

f imcl\/

(2) on JuIy 20,

ex.2);

axnFrl-

affidavit

:o

the

they

February

8.

2012,

in

response

to

Defendant's

4);

ex.

and

(4)

on

affidavit

in

concention

GroSS's

Pfainti

ffs'

claim

that

satisfres

administrative
fL r r6
h E

rharr

20'

February
thei-r

initial

3) .

administrative

-cnrri reronl-

I1 ,

26 (a) (2) (B) .

on

affidavit

(doc no.

t-hcrr rcf crcnr-6d

(3)

1);

Gross's

interrogatories
)a1)

ex.

c^narate

no'

furnish

Ru]e

wirh

""r

Gross' s

Dr.

attached

thev

(doc.

claim

administrati-ve

timefy

rh^r

a fetter

included

to

i f f c

fnrr-

September 2010, they

2 0 1 L,

Dl>in

1. )

^r" . ) F l : n F r u r

n r . v - ] r 's-sa ^
,vuu
Ir!

their

nornnl i es

rhar

rAn/-\rt

faifed

PLaintiffs

Defendant contends that
qrr

RePoLt Requireg.ent

Eryert

f ls P o r l
u 6nF

marj-

Georgia,'

claim
.lf

\/Ff

they

the
mauerials

6r'r-q

were

Af rei

not

any materiaf

expert

report

were

sent

rq,

rcrri6n3,[

<

served

to

upon

Defendant's
S.

(Id.,

Karnik.
the

that

which

imposed by the
n^-hinn

provided

ro

fFal-

Plei-fi

di

ennrrarrr

filed

(doc,

Order

a-oument

responses

no.

There is

9).

were

materials

2412.

chac

an

-a'a-ennar'l

The

initial

Lhe

constitute

m 'e r e l - - r z
'' -J

dnr-rrmcnl-q

on June 28,

March 10'

to

shows

2012 deadfine

adniniscracive

Ffc'

and Sanjay

case only

March 10,

prior

counsef

this

were

the

fhp

interrogatory

and

iha<a

expert

Dr

'

Gr^^^t

.

affidavil

wilf.

The Court
Crnce,

qLowino

of

materlafs

Schedulinq

reiecrs

disclosures

Shannon H. Statkus

was wefl--after

Delendant's

al.-rrrrr also

.

The record

cfaim

Court's

-onn-rr

nn

r6h^rl-

2.)

Ex.

case,

administrative

(id.),

20L2,

this

in

counsef

c

^ F F.i

awnarl-

|

Becker and Green,

P.C. ,

vrhe.ha-

Lr19

\ U U t L . l r - 1. ,

1I

eX.

eyrrFrr

cnmnl

:l

to

information

which
r.'i l-h

iac

Dr
il"o

LLC v.

See oES Fitef'

at-i.lavif

to

extent

Epstein,

(11th Cir.

549 F.3d 1344, 1362-63

sufficient

contained

/^^hh1

Rule 26(a) (2) (B) .

provrs aons of

/ c n rn e i df au s r r r
ri!
\ uu rr

,J -,..1

ct.LI-L(ldv-L

the

consider

however,

j-^

l-:.ha.l

2008)

-n'r'nLainL

with

comply

Rule

25 (a) (2) (e) ) .
a. Formal
As to

the

(a) (4),

and

"prepared

3
a,1-^-:i-+

forma.I requirements

Dr.

Cross's

and signed"

Defendant
lap^a

sa

Requirenents

attacks

expert

rav

the

of

incLusion
/a.'rli

Plai--ir'c

rrafacci^^:l

was

affidavit

m:lrra.Fi-a

Dr,

ra'l

o

L

affidavit
g^Pc

d^a<
*"-"

^^r

:hnl\7

rh

in

-'4:r^-,1-

I

Defendant is
S 9-11-9.1,
an expert affidavit
to be

'"i'

writing"'

"in

upon Defendant. s

G r : o s s 's
q

26(a) (2)(B)

Rule

by Dr. Gross, and "served"

court pursuant to o,C.G.A,
federal
O.C.c.A, S 9-11-9,1. which requires
-^-^r.inr

imposed by

the
in

correct
lhat
filed
liith a

fa.lar^l

.li\rcrei

t\7

( S e e C o m p l. ,
was

both

c a h a' u ]vrsr+' l
.

Doc. no.

Doc. no.
and

served

i ra
4 rr Y

JU'

I;

Ex.

nr^arl

<

Dr.

Plaintiffs

filed,

raar|i

Since

3 )

'tco

rarnanf

Gross's

also

furnish"

affidavit

satisfied

the

the

report

9. )
b. Timeliness

As

be

d.isclosures
Gross's

March

Order's

to

quafify

the

- jn
-

of

Procedure

qr-hc'-lrrli no

the

judge's

n 'ned !i !f r r
y
r( v

their

('..,|r-t s

expert

rnr

Scheduling

Plalntiffs

to

furnish

an

was therefore

timely.

aL

contained

sufficient

information

to

'..--:

n n d i ' i e e l or ^+ i l r z
v r

however,

in

5iLUw

Orclcr

che
r vn !

-n

Le

g\Julr

form
Var.L

violared

16(b) (4)
f o-

riLvs4!+!v

e l - a r " l In L i
,
- LU

plainciffs

Rule

16(b) .

Sr-he'lrr'li no

report,

^,
y u,-rIh ^ r-- A l j - u u
Jv

for

' har

nar-

Here,

consent."

d ! r,LL-rcrv-lL

h:rra

"ma.u he

order
u!u!!

f h.a

rhe

affidavit

it

in

,ar.nraq

JLIIUUJ-!'i9

Dr.

report.

as an experl

Civi.L

orders,

Court

was before

DF. Gross's
that

the

expert

that

\^/ith the Complainc and served

which

2011'

Dcf c-r.lan'

Rufe

that

was fjled

JuIy

extent

requirement

times

the

2AL2 deadfine

10,

6vna-t- rFn.\rleast

made at
affidavir

experr

Defendant

upon

26 (a) (2) (D)'s

Rufe

to

provides

-r'rnrJ carrso

Pfaintiffs
buu

of
i n
-r

Federal

tha:
:n.l

do not

raLher

Gross's

?n1'

A.

m-rrii

f 1/

wiLh

seek to

contend

Dr.

lL rL a j
- rc

pla

a

that

expert
intif

Crn h q q lur r. f
J lr a.

f S
t i nn
rrv

4I F, Supp. 2d 1358, 1362 (N.D. Ga. 1999); Boone
see Baird v. celis,
cases.
Even though the
v. Knight, 131 F.R.D. 609, 612 (S.D. Ga. 1990) (Alaino. J').
that does not
Geo-gia pLead-ng reouirenenL dces not apply in Iederal coirr,
tuheLher dn experE affidavit
courL
fro*
corsioering
a lede-al
res!ricL
Ru e
26 (a) :2) {B) experL
.report
the
com[lainE
saLislies
a
aLLached !o
'n
r ' - - i ->-! - ' u L!d-! ! y
I tou
I q
lederal
colrrL.
See OFS
raorliremenr
which is
aPvr
|u
fitel
, 519 F.3d at
compLaint
contained

1362-63
sufficient

(consrdering
informat.ion

tlheLher experL aIIidaviL
aEtached
RuLe 26)'
to comply with

ro

be

r-^r'i^--^.]

-LrLP-r r \-a

hThar

l r-s\!^ - 6 .
l
s

Lsu

not

some but

contalns

consequences under
In

f360-63.

shorc,

fal

I nui

nn

RuIe

canf

the

Circuit

37(c) (1).

Lhe question

has

of

not
thaf

by

evaluated

the
the

5 49

F. 3d at

sufficiency

here regards
Dr'

26(a) (2) (B)

Rufe

required

raLher

See OFS Fite-I ,

content

is

,rf f iclav jI

exnerl-

information

Eleventh

20L2 wiI).

modification

:-

nrn\/ides

of

the

under

sufficient

\/

Whether the

than modification.
is

nF-f

all

rule,

report

expert

F

March 10,

to

16 (b) (4)

Rufe

and

timefy

considered

prior

submitted

information

onfy

Order,

is

Gross's

affidavit
in

discussed

the

i nn

c. Content

26 la) (2) (B\ ,

Rufe

to

Accordingr

Requirements
an

avnarl-

r6n.\11-

mrr c]-

conta.in the f ollowing:
l Li/ I
\

a

st af anArl-

r:omnl efe
uv,L,IJ

o

nf

-

r-

nn'r'npg

WitnesS

the

will
express and the basj-s and reasons for them; (ii)
the facLS or data considered by Lhe witness in forming
(iii)
wiff
be
used to
that
exhibits
any
them;
(iv)
witness's
the
them;
or
support
summarize
n , ra l iaf r ne r i n r c
qu :f if :o

inz^lrrdinn

rn

ar--hn-ad

i l^a

a

n- r o - - ' -r ( r u S
r -v

lict

-LU

nf

n'hlir-:j-

all

a

\ v /

ysoLr,

.Iist

inn<

of

alL

other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the
tria.I
or
by
an
expert
at
as
testified
witness
a statement of the compensation
and (vi)
deposition;
Lra nairl
!L
}Jurv

fL v n

R.

Fed.

discussed

Civ.
in

q

Grnqq's

Thornton's

nni

j-aeiimn.r,,

an.l

lhe

P.

26(a) (2) (B) (i)-

(vi) .

in

Uhe

Each

CaSe.

subsection

turn.

Subsectlon
oyr\Fr-,

el-|drr

fr-

(i)

n i ons -

j-LrFF-na.rF

medicaL

requires
as

weII
affidavit

records

as

^

-.\rrnl

their

bases

states
and is
10

aj-a

that

familiar

st^f6nenl

Of

and reasoning.
he
wiLh

rev.iewed

the

Dr.
Mr.

Lhe procedures

patients

manv

with

Ex.

1

c m L L P n y r a a co
ETnl vr €E
f

.\f

i-htr

r::re

whiIer

(Id.

9l 4.)

----*^-^^i^

LUtll\Js

surgery

,,--

^^^r'l

of

.a soiled

fater

I L . n\ j.rr- l l- h \ /
Fr r

rc-r) i nenl-

t he

h oJsJn u t a I
v I r iur

s l ^ u\ :/1Je

(Id.

WhiIe an ideal

insrances

of

c^A c^^nhrre .raaL

"-"%

11 ?qq?q

alfidavit

tL-va

ri

h
v ua

report

v2

$urnafrrl
rv!!u++j

delivers

the

6f

c ' rdarieS.

rhc

initial

<utl r h Y u l . - L
r
Juqa rr r

ttFnt

Lhe lsecondl

inltlaf

failure

was

reanastomosis

the

was

than

ideal

cond.itions
or

and closure,
room at

(Id. )
es

:nrlald

the

(b)

landl

operating

sttr.reri

Dr.

.Least 24

Gross further

Mr.

CaUSed

1 p - 6v r n! s e-4 er-r e t i n n c
!!
v! a v

would provide

Cross's

alleged-Iy

rendicion

a "brief

r.r

rF^l-

i -

ThornLOn'S
an,'l

.rrrrent

ql 5. )

Dr.

opinionsr

"(a)

ileosotomy

to

mrlIinlc

,

canan.l

that

less

an

return

<

r^-l

that

abdomen under

^ ^ i h i ^rh f
r wrr
wPf

L

-lva e r r iLn n
aud Y

a second washout. "

after

disabilities.

u

rl

in

care

subsequent

that

f

rAh^rt-

arizc

have been de-Layed by
and

stapling,

!!uv!

-cf

fi

treated

Thornton's,

: PPtf :
on n l i ^ s fo' l o

and repair

investigate

standard

and should

t^iT

rrrc..rrl

to

ncrformer'l in

his

. v n r v !i v^ror

Gross found

Dr.

!r

lJvv!r_!

.

.

ovn ri r sn e s
v t
J

c

-ho-nron's

Vr

Mr.

to

tLa
LrrE

SpecificaIly,

the

hours

Cra<<,

personallv

has

and anasromoLic leak/disruprion;

necrosis

below

nr

Ar -' L
n u '9 u-r^ -a

Ir!

l 5

he

simllar

conditions

n e r f o -rvmri' n-. r
!
- r

u

thaL

states

qfl 2-3. )

( C o m p f .,

dllcts

he

Indeed,

Derformed.

more detailed
poi nts

affidavit

negfigent

conduct

primari I y of

LLC v.

Arch

Ins.

Co.,

No.

trl^

Anr

21

2OOq\

/M

n

I rr

i n^.lF.rrr^f

grearer

c/'l

deLai]
11

Tndeed

than

out

and surely

consist lingl

the

bases for

I egal

specific

goes beyond
conclusions. "

3:01 -cv-941 ,
1f i ndi

I)r

expert

{lrnqqt

nrr

q

reporc

2049

cvncrf

F).nprf

filed

hv

De'er.la1f

-€€i.l-,,i
crrr-LLrdv

L

c;(IJsr

allow

rh's

ir
t
rL-

- - r r-^ \u. wl rrd - r

nnnnqrrr

Ithe

(11th Cir.

n
2 n w ua
u

\

\!rrrvfr-Y

(ii)

Subsection

of

o-r data

facts

his

or her opinions,

( C o m P l .'

expertise.

(Id. ,

Exs.

No.

(" [B]revity

2012)

of

invafjdaLion
-^--l

u \ J r r u t u o r t! q - r \ r
u y

l iL-rhEc
l
L
>cl-,d

^

I a Ls

I

rel

^ - l - , r l - 'i -

afone and unadorned. "

r..l

CfOSS-

1303,

1,323

we].L as

u ri t h

rhe

the

.

does

i <

not

i -:nf

hFrF

e-F

n-esented

Tha

olnri
v ,

. r ir vn tn q
r
t r

finds

(quotations

and

(S.D.

resu.It

tharaf

and cjtaLions

Ga.
in

and

affidaviL,
GroSS/S

Klosinsk i,
Sept.

Ta-l- c

25,

automatic

a d m o n jL i o n

I ha

alonreirle

17,

per:tinent

Dr.

that

See AbdulLa v.

1.1a.^rrca

^rF

the

he

that

own training

r-^nDlaint

*5

formi ng

from April

Further,

corrrt

(ii)

his

in

states

dating

of

disclosure

wirness

and che preceding

report,

ied

Of

requires

records

WL 44291'19, at

afone

nyn' ,i ' ! v r :r n n s
n r
v

e x o e r !r l L
!^y!

a

II2l

affidavit

tlfl L-2.)

qh.)rj--

2OI2

1:10-CV-159,

1

subsection

satisfied

affidavit

f i ni rrr

552 F.3d

expert

Gross's

as

.i I o.l

In

2-L9.)

Dr.

the

medical

Ex.

were

records

medicaL

by

2009,

Novembe.r 5'

to

2009,

Here,

Thornton's

on Mr,

relied

26(a) (2)(B)

Rule

consjdered

the

enoni

rah

DrummondCo.,

Dr. Gross's

^ L - . e ' 6 r \ , r ir r E-: ^ .1
w
l
Jtr h

i { in.]ihd

/

fnr

nrpnFra

ro

Romero v.

Cf,

"errf f i r-i anr

nrnrri,,lod

nar-vl

VI,IJvJlrIYF,q!9jl

examinatlon, "

rr
j

Court f i-nds that

The

maLter,q

rrn.n

his

nnininns

n-a

-.\j-

against
WhiCh

in

a

n-Fcented

omitred)).

o on May 23, 2A12, Defendanc frled
Lhe expert :eporE of D-. Vendie d.
-TI.
(Doc. no. -1. )
Tne expert oo'nio'l conra,ined in L:re repo-rL reads
Hooks,
as foffows:
"ArLer Ehorough Iev-ew of the VA l4edical Records oI Mr. Larry
No
Thornton, I fee.L that the standard of care was met in this case." (Id')
further explanation of Dr. Hooks's opinion was provided

L2

c r r h < a / ^ l -i ^ n
ran^'.

!rPv!

liii\

-..nn-ai.

L

JuPPv!

srnnorl

Ihe

ra.^rls

Rrrla

Arr\/ FvFil^if

wFrF

' c
,

exnerl

^hi

26lal

s

ni nnc

and jt

lRi

will.

ircq

used

to

tha

readily

evntrr

SummaIiZe

of

'n-dical

pynarl

aFf'davit

be inferred

-hose

that

subsection

was

to

the

This

wou.Ld be used as exhiblts.

records

rhtr

r'6rl-ir6rf

flrcss'q

nr.

could

r6.y

be

HF-F

F'^"r.qrdF

2-I9),

l?l

1-haf

vurrrrvtrr

nrovr.lad

(compl. I exs.
medicaf

-f

satisfied.
(iv)

Subsecrion
q

rritneqs,
:rrl-hnra^

i r

affidavir

states

l^n'rrc

rt^a

I ha

n vno < i t
P
r

nrorri

j- en

nrrq

\/e:

$qr1yd6.n

-f

l -vr: n
r

a

e lnr r irn r f i r g r , 1 E - L r ,
J - .nL al.-L

M A .. '
.1n

does not

afso

has

June

28,

Dr.

response

(Doc.

I1 ,
Dr.

quafifications
id.)

the

cross's

1

of

'fhiq
--LLe

)
t

Complaint

the

motion

at

10-28 . )

The

CV,

which

sufficiently

and a list
providing

of

Dr.

Gross's
13

-r^-^

WhiIe

and

the

no

found
of

the

the

Court
CV

record

Defendant unti.L
claim

summary iudgment.

administrative

publications

his

cf .atemen.r

administrative
for

of

Center

(id.),

to

who

Medical

review

provided

fifed

avnarf

DiviSiOn

qualifjcaLions.

CV was not

2

the

Baystate

The Court's

Lo Defendant's

Ex.

Of course,

1ql

Puuffuq

Crn<<'q

CV was attached

1-19).

Gross's

package in

included

to

exs.

at

his

when Plaintiffs

2012,

no.

his

exh.ibit

(see id.,
that

reveals

that

states

exam.ined each

attached

Fr.

estabLjsh

sufficiently

affidavit

/ .v - m.n ! -\ /1 .l

-'Lri^-tions

I icensed physician

r^\ief

Trauma and Emergency Med-ical Services
i-Lr-

nr

rq

anri

conLajn

alt

a practicing,

Lhat he is
Lr

report

expert

iL -^ !rf - l r uru. flri- r o
9

ourur- a l i f i c a f i n n s .
Y

J

the

requires

set
since

credentiafs

forth
1979.

claim
his
(See

on June 28,

(v)

Subsection
ic, .:onfain

rcnort
tA<ti

f i a.'l

^.vP s^ , !f
s \ ^

u

.ac

e tyr n t r !r rg
r^ /
-LllI5

:n

w1rress

^-,-r

^.ntains

sent

Plaintiffs

no

f .rrr

rhe

nrewi o rs

the

after

rwo

wltness

nr

Cr^-^'^

lrpArq

had

not

(Doc.

June

28,

2012,

testlfied

as

no.

15 aL

of

Dr.

statement
Gross's

the

an

2 n.1.)

On

to

,lune

27,

Defendant which provided
(Doc. no.

matter.

March

Order's

Dr.

10,

not
20L2,

Gross's

20, Ex.2.)

As

was

made

deadfine

and

disc-Iosure

Lhis

subsections,

expert' s
does

affidavit

compensation.

of

Schedul-ing

2AL2

Rule 26(a) (2) (D) .

viofated

therefore

a

case.

r . n m n c n s a f io n s c h e d r r l e i - n t h i s
wi fL

the

which

r r n! r r " iumi o. l r r
Jrr .
r /

requires

an emaif

in

On

\/aarq

the

expert

list.

such

n:clr4J a
a I ev

rhe

r.\trr

n,ast

Gross

(vi)

in

f he

Dr.

statement

a

March 10'

Order's

requires

cases

that

,w, o J
-^

Subsection

other

afl

r'lrrri no

i".1 tLo

C i l r - r L d l i c l L - LL r t r
-

contain

of

F1.rlari-

exnl a i ned

comnensati on

Ru-Le 26 la) 12) lB)

of

a fist

5rri ^-r,i +

P l e i nf i ffs

Scheduling

the

and Rule 26(a) (2) (D) .

2012 deadline

rFL.r^

pursuanL to

was untimely

2012,

d. Conclusion
To

surnmarize,
with

complied

26 (a) (2) (B) .
subsections

was untimely
cannot

cattrt-,

oood
Yvvu

c

carrse

eahodrrl

i n. r r
. Y

be

rrndar
n -rqd- c r
u
!

expert

Gross's

compliance
in

violation

overlooked
Rrr'lo
:rrl

-A

fn

\r-nmnl
aA

and

remaining

of

Rule
Lhree

Rule 26(a) (2)(D) .

because
r')sri'v

i:nr-o

(iii)

the

with
of

substantially

affldavlt

(ii),

(i),

subsections
However,

untimeliness
q rh o rw n
rr vw r

Dr,

Pfaintiffs

have

rodi'ir-ario*
r," l- l"

l- ha

This

r 6c'9- ;rr' - i
|

of

not
the

1s6r r r^c^ lF ^
r
'
r LJ

of

Rute 26 is

aspirational

noL merely

,"

549 F.3d at

OFS Fitef,

1363.
2, RuTe 37(c) (7) : Effect

. comprises only
the

is

inquiry

jnformaLion

provide

(e),

or

26(a)

Eed.

additlon

or

nf

^i- t'6r

6st^bl

v.

t-hat

Ford Motor

(quoting

(N.D.

ca.

rather,

harmless,

(See Doc. no.

a

violation

Procter

of

Rule

& Gambfe Mfg.

37 (c) (1)

justified

argue

16 at

substantialJ-y
party.

nondisclosing

do

thaL

824

82I ,

(llth

"'

Cir.

E.R.D.

6 8 1,

691

contend

that

its

233
not

burden

"'The

was

substantially

any non-compliance

was

5-6.)

have broad
26 (a) (2)
Co.,

was

disclose

26 (a) (2)

Ru]e

is

or

may

the

Inc.,

Plaintiffs

a

court

the

Pf-zer,

or at

a hearing,

Id.

on

information

"In

sanction,

to

fails

(emphasis added) .

318 Fed. Appx.

Plainciffs

courts

use that

substantially

this

with

juscified;

District

v.

Here,

compliance

untimely

to

of

by Rule

a wicness as required

faifure

Co.,

Leathers

2006) )

when "a party

on a mot.ion, at

rests

half

as an enforcement

SancLionS

a

Rule 26

violated
The other

that

allowed

P.

of

hern-ess

2A09J

not

Id.

operates

states

was

Civ.

annron-iace

ir

Mitchefl

R.

instead

i sh i no

-.,<-iriori

is

faifure

the

harmfess. "

i lrnncc

It

evidence

supply

un-less

to

which

idenr-fy

or

party

the

to

or witness
triat,

37(c) (1),

Rule

Ia parcy]

inquiry."

the

Rule 26\a) 12).

mechanism for
to

half

Nor:-CoryTiance

that

decermining

"Neverlheless,

of

discretion
is

700 F.
15

to

determine

harmfess.
Supp. 2d I3I2,

whether

Silverstein
I32A

v.

(S.D. Ga.

" I TI n

2OO9)

exerci si no

[Ru]-e 26 viofationl

whether

a

a Rule

37(c) (1)

arri.la^

Frz

rha

L

that

+h^

pa rty

*6

f- hrc
. e

q v r L
J urlr rl nrr i

the

surprise;

(3 )

the

the

.u7a

evidence

Two Men and a Truck,
d-lscussed in

--

qF

triaf;

woul-d disrupt

shoul-d be

court

of f ered;

the

is

Each faccor

1l)

determine

purposes of

for

a district

i^rould be

cure

(quoting

to

. harmfess

is

f:crors:

evidence

of

importance

discretion

^,,idence

to

the

affowing

broad

analysis,

excfusion

f a l l-n w i- n o* , . e
.
-

..r.^-

cr9ctrrr>

at

i ts

(2)

fL rl -' v
F

-v

Lhe

to

whi ch
(4)

Iandl

Ly

of

ability

extent

Abdulla,

r^-"'

Par

the

2 o ) , 2 w L 4 4 2 9 L 19 ,
atj *2).

2008 WL 5235115,

turn.

a. Surprise
,tl-,a
I rIE

"this

is

about

an

identified
and prior
4) ,
once

and

cur l rrnt |J i! c aJ U
r
J

not

l.)

Dr.

witness. "

Gross

as

had

filed

5q9

Lheir

March 10,

the

Defendant

Plaintiffs

is

maroinal

expert

Lo

ar

ex.

i-nformation
-1 ^.r -r.l
TIdIITLI!ID

lJbJ.

(doc.

D.r. Gross's

(compl.,

OFS Fit eI,

in

provide

witness

2012 deadline

access
suit

t . JO

As

-

ro

comp.Lete failure

a case of

expert

to

ncf cnrj^nl

1) .

during
no.

€€^

discovery

17,

exs.

3-

experc

affidavic

This

affidavlt

t0 There 1s also a fifth
factor:
"the nondisclosing par:ty's expfana:ron
Abdulla,
2072 VIL 4429719, aL *6
to discfose the evidence."
for .its failure
Inc. v. Res. & ConmerciaL Transp. Co.,
{quoting Two Men and a Truck Int'f/
Thls
N o . 4 : 0 8 - C V - 0 6 1, 2 A 0 8 W L 5 2 3 5 1 1 5 , a t * 2 ( N . D . F l a . O c t . 2 4 , 2 O A B J ) .
tras
pertains
!'rhether
a
RuIe
26
viol-ation
onLy
to
however/
factor,
r . r , r l ^ F - l ^ p -! w a s h a r m l e s s .
>- t,r ir s il ed. ac --..s--l
i
Tn-is laclor
have not argued substantial
here because Plaintiffs
inapplicabLe
is therefore
justification
has
justification.
The Court notes that while no substantiaf
y no ev-dence of ti'll'ul
ron-compliance or bad
been shown, there is absolute
- would
it
existed
evidence !.rhich - if
on the parL of P.Laintiffs,
faith
See OFS Fitel/
549 F.3d at 1365; Vaughn v'
\..rarrant exclusion of the expert.
U.S., 542 F. supp. 2d I33I, 1337 (S'D. Ga. 2008) .
-LO

arrf{:i-ionl-

l\/

a^.I !J zun lr r u vi
^
L
- 4

]/

rrrr:l

if

ir-:r

jr olnJq _
v r l

l-a

n-arr:n

rq I'r

or

jed

to

imporranr

cro ss-examinat ion

see
rrLdll

: lso

^^^^-in^
OppO:'-LI19

'imna.f s
ulona<i

l- inn

c o n t -a i n e d

the

in

rrn l i ka

Fvnerf

the

report

d4i r un ,l v oc- ir - v
c f n
v

close

u!!)

f ^
f ha

the

'3

1362;

(" If]urnishing

ron/! \
r e y J _L r l -

and

al

iS

deposition

549 F.3d at

qrrrnr:

dcnnqe

: d rvz!o v e c - !
qu
!r erl

v

the

COndUCt

: nL: q o' lr

Reese v.

"In]o

discovery) ;

of

i n

be

q

Her:bert,

report

Sommers v.

L1

.r
v!

r

s

affidavit

549

See

F.3d

C raaV

aC
1r

woefully

considered

*2-3

have

(excfuding

expert

sta Lements t'wirhout

far-j- rrAl

hasis"

l L .m. nr Ld^D : ^
e t I " ^
\

I D

521 E.3d 1253, 7264-65 (LLth
of

excfusion
expert

aL

harm.

o.r

cou.Id

Cnodhrre

conclusory

r c ij J - J

G-nqq'

G-rOSS.

ran.\rt

rr

qa

Def endant

Dr

cannot

consis Led

nr

' L 'I ^ r ^

20A9 WL 1139575'

(affirming
but

^

!yJ!-

ar.na

r r- nedLa trl lt r r 9 n n
u r
!
rri

see also

2008)

of

some

for

for

OFS F r -ot

in

a ffidavit

See

inadequare.

identified

imoosed
. nf,1-malion

at

r.^-ari

no

finds

alro

v!lvq!

Anr.i

added) );

nrcn:re

WhiCh

rF

r rve

i-i.ladrr^16
-!rroucAJoLc

tn

affidavit

D r e D a r i n r.r r
t
Y

rrr

G-nqq' q

Cir.

Court

meani nof r''

rrti I ize.l

where

i -rr

:hrl

expert

the

1 36 3

'.^^r''ll.'
wuclurry

in

"\

However,
Unlike

ct

j fs

nnon

-\/na

2009 WL 1139575,

.r-L
wILIr

h5yl-'l
PdlLyl

hFeF<

Gross's

.esFs

nrohah'v

OFS Fitef,

an expert.

Goorlhvs creek/

r

Dr.

and

preparing

acrorneys

of

inn.

Tl-r c

Defendant.

upon

provide

exnerf

an

rhFi

(See id.)

nnnnerca-

aS

nl n4ir rr r v^r nvq v r
r
r ,

!

time.Ly

rr'rirnr^q

nlbl

eynerl-

on.

to

},uvrr!uLlvrrJt

"ae*if

inconvenience
considered

q

Cr^qq,

fai lure

ffs'

Pfaintj

nr

and data he .relied

and the faccs

quqr!!ruoL

na.]

experL

where

was provided"

Hall/

No,

expert

prior

4 : a B - C V 2 5 1,

to

was
the

2010 WL

3453608, at

*3

rE Pn r L r r f
! a v! "

l e vr ll l
Ls

the

" f aai rl r
L

nrrr nar

F v n c r !f

r^rhara

-)

L

wifneqq

al^

\ r'r. e.

c ^I,E

P!vPs!

nynyn n-q ,i Y n a
v
vJ r

a.v

of

lqq?\
ran.rt

.-

n -a' - y
rf
P

lwas'

leSS

174 F.R.D.

'\f:i'rrrc

-n

httr

irrifalino

^1

wd>

nttr:h

Alabama,

i-rFl

{Findino

where

expert

nnininrc

h's

Chapple v.

he relies");

'V

?nn-n1

=\/

luurrtr!i

(excluding

1,2010)

Ga. Sept.
r.lFn-i

tLc r
v

on which

data

6qq

(S.D.

*^"tFrA

"arrIess"

sg r h ve L : f
J ' vJi er

gc-rL!q-

nrOvjde

maTf eI.

Of

iS

tO

expert' s expected Lestimony) .
Tho
narmi

PErrL.-LL

for
l-ra

r

r r u sd ta !rrlrrYz i r o
uIn ! y
nnnn<i

L

nrorri

f he

by

Gross's

experc

n u -rP v Jcr, q e r rn l
P

encl r here

affidavi
wc-l >^
w

abil ity

evidence

woufd
"rhe

crr"nrise

cou-Ld have been
drir v v v n! n r r o r v
e! J
u

r f

be

to

\r

2d at

and

h.1- rnm

an
fing

expert] | s

[the

Dr.

report. ")

served
to

ir^a

t.'Tl^a

expert

^e

!320;

an experL

n^-

o[

wiIl

there

Supp.

t-j

nrartrra

Lhjs

underlying

Defendant

Cure SurPlise
Rufe 37(c) (1)
party

agaj nsL

-

.--a6<

here,

Defendant

'.,if h

P- rinriffS

more amicably

r.\1-r c im^1\,

18

16^..6sted

whom the
-

that

and

ana]ysis

excfusion

che

of

resolved

Da-onr]a-f

^ '..--r

Ju!|J!f-

irr-,

that

, . ? ir - h

apprised

- ^

offered

Corrrr-

^ fL
u

26 (a) (2)

under the

The nexc factor

i!
M

el

("UItimacely,

r)a -f \/

reasonably

t

^ v eF .srq' e v f ) '
-:+
s d Y

700 F.

no

fairly
Rule

b. Ability

Lhe

i.

ni i',

and ensure

//\.
/.

^ - --^s .
uo

were

initiaf

his

opinions

onnosi

vyyvJlrrY

-5
ri L -

n cv *
[ Jr !a n rd I^s

Defendants

concerns

nynl J vo L lu-r r r L rJ r
n !r
v

diqr-lnqtt-ps

?6(a\

Silverstein,

de

lJlv.-us

i
u
u f - r p u r - u . , r Ll)-/ 1 / r-^

Rrrle

2A12 wL 44291'79, aL *6

Abdul Ia,

thar

rhc

qttrnr'Se.

chnrr lrj

of

cro ss-examinat ion

or

rnf ai r

rr-

r a nJ^ r! t L| U

js

r-nrrrqal

deposition

see alsc
-

n. n
. V

vPPvof

burncrse

yu!t/vJ!

expert

cure

to
thiS

dispute

efficienrfy

Lhe

RuIe

the

25 (a)

during
(2)

(B)

not

filed

or

affidavit

was

a mocion to

We do

rhi

In

party

on

commend either

not

raenl9o

compef

a

Gross's

exr"\Frt-

situat ion,

a similar

stated:

Circuit

the Eleventh

Dr.

1n

included

that

information

.li

cnrrl-a
JI/ur!

f l"ha

r

its

nr-n.nenr

efforts

of

rhe

to

evnertl

in the future,
its
wou.Id do weII to make sure that,
and
comport with both the spirit
Ru-Ie 26 disclosures
Nonetheless/
of the rule.
the fetter
lthe opposing
n i r F r u ly
/

:l

I

}Jq!

Inr.rod

lhi

e

imn:qqe

t.

conr-intte

wel I

herzoncl

to resofve the issue
efforts
the point of good faith
wirhout court intervenLj on. never moving for an order
re.rrri-ir,r

l\/

!EYuf!!rrY

^:

parryl 's

IThe opposing
f fL h re l I e^x !n e r t
r u
u u !
t
j-he untenable

d6i

mortr

l a.l

rtrqn.nsF

n'

nni

rl'e
f.o

l^av'no

clisLrict
exclude

a

26.

prevent

at'cempt to

minute

Iast
j'rzr..r

f rom req'
nositio.

RUle

Undef

in
court
witness

identil ied for over Lwo years and, i-n fact, deposed by
in
a
trial
already
plaintiff,
continue
or
the
nronress,
an rnnal atabl,e so.Lution.
In view of these
,.- r.
i

r n q r -. a n / - a q

sa\/

r^,tr.^nnr'\i

-hal-

l-he

for
motion
of
Griffith's
deniaf
a
sancrions \,^ras n abuse of discretion.
v.

Griffith

avna--

irc
h:rra

see

hoan

I eo.

..r''-i rn

cli sr^l osrrrraatti

K.

rz'^

t.r

pmcnf

<rrltnl

some materi-af
or

q

respect

incorrect

r
d

i-:

rrr

s!,,!t

at

*3.
s rnr'l

if

evnF r l

.)r

correct

l-he

nFri\/

response

Instead

attempting

for

abuse, an

clearly

affidavic

who has made a discfosure

or

of

of

FvnFrl

"rFn.--

i-ts

discfosufe

le:r'rs
i e

to

r.r^-

that

in

i n..\mnl

Fl- a

resolve

the

qlf

Lers

from

c ^ - - a r s / 2 0 10
was no major o*i ss'on Lhat would have
Here, there
'lhe
F-.enta Eion .
once Pfainliffs
Cou-LL also notes that
rr-

f :Tcl,/

("A party

'r;nne-

inadequacies
would

disclosure

the

Due Lo Ehe po-enLia-I

WL 3463608/

Groqs's

Dr

l/

).tt

rrd tu!

nrA\/aFi6-

-irolv

the

Pfaintiffs

qnnn l cmFnt

m r r< f
{Al

of

Plaintiffs

die^n-ran,

26(e) (1)

L1v.

for

.

original)

Defendant had informed

If

COuf t'S

and

3 0 3 F . 3 d L 2 16 , 1 2 8 3 ( 1 l , t h C l r

Gen. Motors Corp..

(emphasis ln

2002)

rlistriCt

contempt

F,a

^.

.a.i

h\r

,,<o

L9

^ f

Rule

felt

it

during

25 dispute

af fF.t. i rralrr qceki no the harshest
In
^i

<nnrrarrr

'If q

1-^

.\\^rn

finds

.l

a:rncrj

q,rn-ise

rFfrr<or.l

harm

ral'Jnan

i na

.F.r r\
^

rl i cnnrrarrz

..li qnl

nqrrre\

sanction/

the

sanctlons")

.

^-

d-L rs

L9

see

:

that- 'tf iln

(staiino

\vro u Y r-rir-r .. ^
-,

.

_ |,r>L-Lr,Lelr/

where

c.n.

^ ,v. ,i !-c-l ^ L

a.Lso
to

addition

--.,

E

F

or

to

due

ro

See
that

court
tar.e

2d

af

WaS

I137-38

hrr

CaUSed

rrnl- i ma l rr

Civ.

P.

37(c) (1) (c)

of

this

Iexcfuslon]

instead
impose

may

court

S 'ytbnJn
-"
.

R.

Fed.

66t]I.1

cure

_.)n-ar\nn

Lllm

dlry

I c'rL

25(a) (2)(B).
district

26

Rttlo

Thc

suffered

Rule

1355 (reversing

1351'

. \

appropriate

allegedly

with

j

12-1

a more

Defendant

r Jr i! c v s oJr z e r r u
sr
v .:r

r.,-r.r

^ t t,,

^,,r^^---!.t

at

reopen

J u}Jvtc

o'ru

?i

is

to

Court

'"

nn

non-compliance

!!vI,err

5UrJsLd1lL-LdIIy

)^/-

-

summary judgmenl

moves Lhe

.lcnace

re.Lief

that

549 E.3d at
t.\

avn6rr-

i qa6
\:::

.

partiaf

OFS Fitel.

f .r

alternative

n-

Plaintiffs'

/ raanar

l-tafand.anr

ren.r-

this

that

anv

l nrr

harm

or

a v a . i . I a b fe .

sanction

Defendant

a.Iternative,

Lhe

surpr.rse

any

Defendant. moved for

had suffered,

it

and cure

discovery

other

:nnrnnr

i rt-o

.

r u l ' u L ' a! y
rl

q rur! r Jn r i qre J v
I !

Ionod

afts9sq

Avhart-

n-f

clrrinn

r

irfnrmal-ian

-ha

t^.'ro

L " L

rli

c nnrra

were

:nd

Fad

l1)

di sr-orrerv
t)\

qrrrnri

F--eoad
q + ! v Y v v

counsef againsr

and^rt

exclusion

haq

qe

n.

rho

-o

crrre

at

-Fr-Irracf r'tn

srtnnl

a r r r Jr!o nv u
nn
ri

!

this

time,

Dr. Gross and in

of

v

more

hv

nranaqed

harm

^h'lrf

[avor

ementa.I

are

These

of

it-S

rcr

r ^'

factS

reopening

rrr

with

confronted

-l-o

nr-rrir""'w

:hn

-^-76ch^hAi

rr.l'crn-

the

nction

ased

Rule

f^-

c,rhhyU

26 (a) 12){B)

r avl-

2A

i , r,A /" m . . .f . . - ,
1 l- r e y r a . A i I U
- .. ah
-^
Soa
<rlhr^
information.

nr^r,i.lan
nnfa

rl

the

Assessing

-ha cnr.rf

dr c rrrn- i o""r whatsoever.
/qrnrin.'t

fLhr^ r
r qL

been

refused

was

nc,t- h66rr nler:ecl on the
Now
o Jr
lrc an r lrriu

rorl

rrrrjar

e_va ! E

i-r
rr <

C}!U-LU5IUII

UI

^rAA--1/
YlsaLrJ

In

affidavit
to

/l.^r^r--

\rr|.-rt!-rrrr9

proximare
4360618,
1?Aq

542

expert

Gross's

of

as

sanct.ion"

l aw
rq w

nas

imminent.

is

information
'^r

f i -re

arnlp

the

more thoroughly

-hc

j p-6'r,

c-")r'

nf

against

counsefs

*5

Supp.

(same);
evr-lrr<inn

2d

aL

excfudinq

Lo rhis

his

expert

was

excfuded

ras

Defendant would be entitfed

e ^ un a r l L x L!

malpractice

see also
of

1335,

2I

cases);

iqn^^:-i"^

(refusing

case-dispositive

216

-os-'nnnrz

vs

fo

ro

expert);

500

es1-abIiSh

FIuellen,

c^Ps!

at

Ga'

549 F.3d

OES Ei!ql-,

r-:qe-d

1338

and

See Zwiren,

1aw.

a u L
!rs Yc rr r rr iJ

cause in medical

of

CaSe

excremefy important

is

record,

of

a matter

scv!9fo

/rorroz<inn

F.

Gross

from the

^^^r^ia

+ 'F - lL
L La

at

that

court

the

factor

had

Evidence

the

testimony

Dr.

if

stricken

judgment

rq

CaSe

r11S

of

.l:crrrntino

this

short.

the

lJL.

Indeed,

case.

alf

ihFrtr

t

F-rA

and al.Iow Defendant to

d. fmportance
Dr.

P
\l u / \

fOf

L364-65

at

and no triaf

provided

l - /\
?
\

I ^ , i l -h . r - f

.-rea

'r.lr.l^^r'l^-LrL-L9c1L1ulr.

Lr lc

) v \( e \
- 6 u/

reopen discovery

Courc to
pI

Rrrle

F.3d

district

()F\

calendar

have

wou.Id be no

there

daCe

reversing
1n

expe.rt cestimony

549

rriaf

Ae

triaf

Plaintiffs

that

Fi n r l s t h a r

r.

and

discoverY) .

reopen

to

\,'

frLrt,v!

imminent"

Gross's

OFS Fitef,

See
rnn^r-:n-l

" m uoJ s t
t"
L

or

set

whj ch Dr.

ro

extent

r ^ r n r dl d i rqu-vr n t - I rhue f - i a r
L r
!
L

\-uqLrrlv

Trial

of

c. Disf,urttion

2008 WL
at

L r ,

1351,

\?^rr.rh4
vou9L"r,

impose
Abdufla,

"harsh

2012

*4,

wL 4429L19, at
to

cruciaf

*6-1

/crmo\

Dr.

Aa

Plaintiffs'

thi

Gross's

f.a.f .1r

e

is

testimony

-r),rhsel s

a.rainSL

excluslon.
e. Conclusion
aanci
uvrrJ

^ori

-sr!

nn

of

circumstances

srrrnri sed
AsznArr

srrf fir-ierllrr

.lrrri nn

r.li cr-nrrarrr

I)r

n i cnnrrarrr

jL-e c Lq rfLi tm ro n \ /
J r
vr j

i q

as

26(a) 12) tB)

cr]lci

of

however,

parties

Gross

al- i nn

f ha

rrf

the

issue

sf

and

under

:^r

Of

fiaf

and^nf

f c.l
t q

22

eyno

r-

CUIe

Reopening
r

\]r(,DD

S

CaSe.

Ln
Ruf e

not

warrant

The Court

request
. \!f
v

af a

r"i -h
r

i anr-c

37(c) (1).

n]]rn..)sa

thi

will,

does

therefore

reopen

LrrdL

9-Lvcll

alternative
I imi

r.\nri

suffered.

rc<nlggjgn

Rule

to

availabfe

nnr--nnnn-

harmfess

f nr

faCtS

aflegedfy

i

af f idavirj-ha

l-\:caQ

-

dPP!Op!-LdLe

their

:n.l

-

time

denoqir'ion

l-ha

FvnFrl

been

have resofved

should

stif I

is

Defendant's

r ' {i < n n r r a r r r

rhar

vy!trrvrr*

ffs'

Dr.

grant

-.1

Lis

anrl

Defendant

a-

was

exclusion

a -m. a n l e '

the

aAl 2

ont ni o-s.

h ri fs o
L

G-nqqrq

Pfainti

<r Pf
J U IrJn n l

Gross

-'
a - f n a r- -- - 1 d - L-- L Y -q

i <

sunmary.

Dr.

1O-

no

caused

identified

there

prej udice

any

26(a) (2)(B)

RuIe

Plaintiffs

While

f^r

Pl-alntiffs'

have

M:rr-h

di sr-r-r.erv-

urJUvv!rl

that

finds

Court

not

er<nl ainad

he re-Lied on,

n-.nair.-:1

should

L^rJ-qrrrsu

y

the

with

r--.1

f aatf Ual

Defendant

fhat
j--

n-r i - vr-r
v u

ar

Defendant.

to

c r iv e n

i.ltl

case,

thls

harm

discernible

r n r. u l
uL ,

n:rf

non-compliance

Dartiaf

ro

rhe

-rrY

for

d r n / ' l q i f nr. Y
r r
va PvJ

-an/1rj-

refief
n-.
u-

and
Cr^^^

Summary ,.tudgment

B.

7. standazd
q , r . n r ra r \ /
-ron'ri na

r ' li c n r r r e

Fq

v l 9 I , q ! !

entitled

to

55(a) .

Facts

the

-.laJ"rFnt

i

under

suit

party,

in

Court.

+hi s

r - : 'r r! r ,) /
!u

at

:f

must

Court

the

non-movlng

Radio

475

Corp.,

inferences
94t

F.2d

punctuation

and

Reaf Prop.,

(internal

r-:sc

nF-essFrv

Inc

iniLj al

material-s

on

l. rr.len

1993).

Cir.

fha

ways -

rq

to

rhe

has

dantrnds

Fitzpatrick

triaI.

f rr,:l

two

Clark,

(en banc)

v.

The

iustifiable
of

P.

Anderson

to

Zenith

Four Parcefs

or

hrz

to

City

t / , l h e nt h e

n.\/enl-

negating

by

v.

on

.l^nwt r.r

an

6A4,

the

who

of

the

l-ha-

l_Lere

606-08
23

r s

case.

(1lth

show,ing the

323

3I1 ,
Lhe

ALf ant.a, 2

initlal

the

evt

See CIark

Cir.

1991)

(1986).
of

1112,

F.3d

of

burden

of

da"tce

the

burden

burden

element
no

for

basis

bears

essential

1-he non-movant's

929 F.2d

file'

non-movant has

.arrv

mav

of

burden

477 U'S.

Co_.p-___lr.*_!.!t"!!,

Cefotex

(11th

fA.l-

v.

v.

pa.rty

reference

by

Hnr^r 1,-'

.r.lzanl-

Co.

1991)

Cir.

moving

motion.

l

favorable

Civ.

omitted) .

The

1115

most

is

outcome of

the

(1986) .

248

no

movant
R.

.Iaw.

242t

Indus.

Lhe

cou.Ld affect

sr:Lrsra-tive

is

"lhe-e

Fed.

faw. "

and must draw "a]I

U.S.

(11th

I43'l

proof

(1986),

if

and

of

they

U.S.

fight

the

favor. "

titsl

citations

of

in

587

574,

I428,

n!r nv r f
v
IJ

411

,

MaLSushita ELec.

U.S.

if

oorre-n i no

the

facts

the

matter

a

"materiaf"

r L ip erL- . ^ ' e+ i ' lrv e p1 - \ h 1 , L rh v .
'
^I
r LL
y
I

view

as

\/

or

*^ ' - -.r^ ,

art y

tO

iudgment
are

:nn-onriafe

is

in

the

one

non-

l-o

nrove

a

v.

Coats

&

(expfaining

Adickes

v.

v.

Corp.

Kress

S.H.

the

consider

whether

chaui

ra

that

it

r.if ',

entitfed

to

.-, l,r"rhrrq

^f

I2A

nrrri:m\

meet the

judgment
F.3d

met

of

fact

and

Jones v.

law.
Cir.

-

the

CannOt

929 E.2d

Clark,

its

(per

L 9 9 1)

non-movant

the

insufficient.

is

must firsr

of

of

-haC

can

burden

(1lth

254

it

initiaf

as a matter

248,

Court

mater.iaf

its

issues

and Celotex

the

movant carries

triaf

at

burden

Before

opposition,

qtaj- e'rtrn*

/^/1n^ |q/1r\/

A rna-a

has

no genuine

are

1-hara

is

in

movant

the

-^.---

fhrl-

(1986)) .

response

non-movan!'s

evaluaLe

317

411 U.S.

Catrett,

(f970)

744

398 U.S.

& Co. /

at

508
-

If

if

and only

"rJcmonstr:t linol
thrt-

nronl

the

' i t -c

burden

rLF q nr .r rn q a
r olJv
u

l-o

lf

n c V r a r r un9
irn
llcro

:

evidence

f a.l

to

materj-aL fact,
contains

the

evidence

"come

wlthstand

If

1116.

hv

When the

1 -h a

the

movanL

evidence
I'nrrq1-

an'r-ra\7an-

a

directed

sought to

that

forward
directed

with

additionaf

verdict

motion

or

rcsno^d

evidence
at

triaf

WiCh

motion

at

FiLzpatrick,
evidence on a

show that
ignored"

its

affirmatively

be negated. "

either

was "overlooked

fact

non-movant

carried

verdict

the movant shows an absence of
non-movant must

of

non-movant must tai1or

the

whir:h

withstand
fact

on rhe materia]

2 F.3d at

or

al

Id.

movant presents

the

sufficient

rrial

mareri

tt

t.riaI,

mct Lr.l.i

f r-p

burden.

initial

at

-

by

only

a materia.L issue

indeed

irrdoment

proof

of

is

there

qrrmm:rv

r r d a eJ
uvL

P!LUr

bears

that

j udgmenc

sunmary

avojd

may

non-movant'

rhe

burden,

initial

the

l:ecord

by the movant
sufficient
based

on

to
the

: I I 6^a.l

Fv\r rv iL r r.Ll ra nJ i
u
ur

qffsYUs

-.hh^f

uq!

r F p ! e ar r - v a f
r ! n a, ,in

v.

/-\*haF\ir qa

In

nrnlr irlad

the

marerjals

other

(Doc. no.
,v. .
are

15,)

l.2d

-F^

l-h^

r^r-i-n

the

the

-r^L-r

Pfaintiffs

and informed
file

to

lfYLtL

as

or

56.

gave

Court

them of

af f idavit.s

or

consequences of

deIaulr.

not-lce

requiremenLS oI

Griffith

825 (11ch Cir.

922,

-ine'o-

nrw

1985)

materials

filing

for

i<

affidavits

1981).

and the

opposition,

The time

satisfied.

^.,^i--n

-r'^

Therefore,
11.

r " 7 --r,w.!. -rr ^ ,1 .L!
.i
wdf r
91

erlP-L!Es.

in

of

tvr

Cir.

PrOCedUre

bv

- - F hr r a |i n t .
(
P

ir-,^

(1It.h

with

summary judgment

i r u U Yo Lm' eLn rd I L r
_

J

i*

aiVil

nf

R r'e

r\r

nla:.lin.rq

1033-34

respond

CIerk

for

motion

qrmm^r\/
J u.,uLLq!

the

fha

crn

1032,

must

hrr Fada-^l

The non-movant

rtt/

^^^+-rF^n

663 E.2d

acL ion,

Lhis

16l\/inal

-rr^--+.i^--

non-movant

IJ!vvruLv

of

hrr

-LO. at

d rrEgdLrt,,rrJ

Ross,

the

Rather,

fhF

hrrrdcn

c v r n"c u IJs or r/ , v o r ' l vl

See Morrjs

notice

il-c

r I

't

r v ot =+i ! r r v^. it i . o n ^ ' r
l
u ! v

i a rrr

(per

curiam),

opposition

has

considers

in

Dr.

COnSidefatiOn.

2. Analysis
Defendant
cr..'ss.s

e- r ro e r f
!
s y

L

argues

even

that

I t^a

af f ict'".f

negligence

under Georgia

the

..n-Fn-q

a o e n r r in e d r s n r r - c o f

esrab'l ish

if

Court

Of

nate-ial

fact

(Doc. no.

law,

the

affidavit

as

20 at

dO

not

to

Defendanc's

10.)

The court

disagrees.
fhe
in

che same manner as a privaLe

substantive
or

rhe UniLed States

FTCA allows

om.ission

43606L8, at

1aw of

the

occurred
*5

(citing

state
qoverns

be sued for

to

and provides

individual

where the
the

28 U.S.C.

25

allegedly

action,
SS 2674,

negligence
LhaL the

negligent

FlueIlen,
1345(b) (r)).

act

2008 WL

^--r r ^s

\_rE(Jrgro

narfarmorl

i n

Air^rref

Mr.

because

ayPffe

:

Ca.Jrn

i^

To

- l,^ s
a
e .

establ j sh

medicaf

the

Iaw,

plaintiff

must estabLish

d4rurL yr r
+
\

hro:nh

of

i nharorf

nf

l-ha I

in

r 'UlLr] r j r r
J

hrr

and care,'

skilI

malp.ractice

f a i l i n oI

larf

(3)

and

.ro

Lhat

^:.-<a nF ll^a i--'rv

sustained."

+4

216 Ga. at

(citing

Zwiren,

to

appear

the

on

Plaintiffs
in

discussed

tu-rh a
rL
hyr r
u

^a

h!rv.!\uf J u ava a i
y
r -r! .-rh o
u

West

care

is
or

3 14 ,

F.rnArt
/ 9 u v ,L. \ f - rL.r^ y
.r'
t
\

ca

H er e ,

and

r u o! r !r o o
l
s 9 !

che proximate

be

Defendant

but

Care

L!

the

2 0 0 9 W L 3 ' l5 1 1 5 5 , a c

Boatwlight,

elemenr,

\4/

r a . t l r c ri Jt rc

fai-Lure

499) .

/.\

^*^Lr*.

LwrrJrrty'

th^

does

does not
challenge

element

is

empl oyed

b,y

Each

elements.

'- r n. o .
Fv -

of

is

r :r,a n' p -rd r r y
. L. L ^

chac

tha

lor-:lif

r rhcc
- r

an

d j I i r-renr:e t

q.r^,- rnr-r

?cA

have
Ca.

done

Ann-

aj-

26

nr a Lr i
u
tt

a

SOmeL.hino
f77)

-

manner'

want

insufficient

f.l

r
er m y t lv y .Eru r o ' l
r .' n
/ Y 1v r . - i ^ L , r Y
.
^
\ s v

52I ,

523

Lhat the medica-l

fuI

a , r r " ,l i n ^

' I.v
r y

App.

2 9 A G a.

skill
^'^"

is

ordi

a presumption

r I

*It

31'7 (2002) ) .
'worrLd

LLC,

/n.-nl- inn

tA

i s

a^'r'rrrn i t\,

or

s,

ordinarily

-rs

ordinarily

P-La-LtiLr

g!!rYLlIUl.:11\Ygv9+rIY

u'i-ness

rr

law recognizes
in

is

-'- -L

S p e ci a l i s t

Care

Breach

whLch

arrlr

in

was performed

l l,

App.

nn

"ceorgia

rl}rrden
ski

nh\zci-rans

Breas L

(2008)).

^-r

I sloL

Lwo

latter

Standard

n- rv nvfJa e c i n n
y
J

v.

-^r

"(1)

turn,
a.

-6,r,,i ra^

elements:

exerct

this

duLy

the

conrest

under

essential

three

rrY

G e or g i a

liability

a
d n r - - n - - n a y q - - L ::L . ,
l
i

tl-o

!l/

were

surgerres

Thornton's

of

\z

due

F/r<l-ar

to

and

rhe

care

or

2C4

show that

clifle-enl'v.,"

"-harcfn-a

Ga.

an
1d.

r

n-a:nLiff

effect
of

r o a sr +r !i
vY

u J u d , r - Ly

!>

^Ff

which

and skif-L

medical

t.\

er

a:znarf

defendant -doctor

the

that

care

the

r o! d
e

!

, ' ' - 6 r! a c J J ! v , l
u
s e

:nn

to

'211

/^rnh^ei

f -

that

f hc

degree

have been employed by

e

\s"LP-ruJ-J

r acj- im.\n\/

exercise

f LF

'ta;a.

I 1

oenc-a

^-

f1PP.

failed

wou-Ld ordinarily

}J

/ .-j rd .
|

mar] inal

in

/-; -^'JnSLanCeS."

nrininal

\
/

i Y u ^ t A ltriv/ r-r\Jn s
\^| vLu

oroitted) .

a.'.rrarj-

nni r i ons

rcr-nrri<

:q

s rrfltron

I9M

€iel^

r-he

in

his

:s

the

treatment

Mr.
Dr,

Gross

rzaqr:nl eri
taav/Ai

zecl

I eacli no

c-,rnf in*

,,

i nrreq-i.r:f

frrvurtrYuLr

6

narfnrmed
and should

^na

hours

later

rhac

these
(rd.

'tLhe

l -/ - \ l - h a
(Id.

renai

!vIr'e4!

suv

5l

--

hF

initiaL

cruouQuent

after

As

ascerfs

by

an
to

return

Lo

21

poor.Ly

anaStOmOtiC
surgery

reanastomosis

ideaL

ileosoLomy

(Id.)

51 3.)

was

anO

than

operating

famjliar

(Id-

second

"Lhe

less

fef -l below lhe

tlgl 4-5. )

rhe

on and

Augusta VA Lo

care.

neCfOSiS

rhat

a second washout. "

cwo surgeries

of

is

anastomosis

ql.hqenrrc^l

have been delayed

he

by the

standard

4.)

(Compl.,

performed surgery

provided

i n a soi I ed abdomen under

arru

5Lqp-.,,e,

care.

that

asserts

- r.ensed

services.

condiLions,

similar

applicable

a

.as

his

medical

s

an/-a

ewna-i

havjng

and procedures

and the

Thornton

wiLh

based

Thornton'

ma^ical

that.

he

that

Mr.

an.j

^r

i ra:i-F.l n^"r\/ nFtients
wirh

tL - a js r r 1 -. r! r r Y
I
+r

He states

1-2.)

of

review

his

states

affidavit

sworn

rnon

r^rell

!rr

os!vcvrr

Ex.

Gross/ s

Dr,

Here,

was

conditions

and closure,
room

to

aL

Ieast

or
24

Dr.

Gross concludes

appficable

standard

of

Dr.
woufd

performed

have

asserts

the

that

l
e n n ' i r ^ e L rF
an s\
F n
> P a n-i - L - !i v

1-hara

s'an.lird

r
u

9vr-u+t,u

a c t -a h l i s l ^

t"

' a _
o.u-u e^ fy u u J f^ h
L

7,a mo:ne

ir-

has in

ie

:n/^rrr:io

m:t e

Here,

Dr.

Gross

multipfe
5.)

Moreover,

in

the

medical

affidavit
cercainty."

(ld.

Arl.lllsl-

Mr.

must use expert

( c . ic i n g

i rFd

n^\/

a

VA

qi r.n.tFt:

while

-hc

Avnrasq

cases.

2 16 G a . a L

Zwiren,

an
Lhan

flenrn

the

that

within

tl 1. )

28

of

the

that
'-_'

r-:q-

regardi ng
of

that

medi Cal

original).

allegedly

disabifities.
aff

i:

sub-standard

LenqLhy hospical

Thornton's

an

r:nnf r dence

opinion

503 (emphasis in

that

"given

testimony

malpractice

sf:nrtarrl

stare

experc

he states
were

-hrre

\/A

fhe

medical

and currenL

re-operations,

1q

ran

opines

in

"resufted

qf :

medica]. certaintyr'

2 16 G a . a t

Zwiren,

highl ighrs

and

formed and the probability

j -F r r ' r q

i ^

r:ausar i on

possibiliry."

surqeries

an

the

care,

evncrl-

:-r

-ha

n.)l

Lhat

onfy

requires
nraxi

iq

Ar'^

*A

concfusion

the

r-ha

in

of

degree

'^'hi r^L

hrr

below

Causation

causar'ion

IRleasonable

he

fefl

wharhFr

Lhe plainEiff

Iaw,

nroximate

500) .

expert

of

Rather'

surgery

reoar.lino

2009 WL 3151156, at

Boatwright,

the

Lrrz

Standard

Proximate

Under Georgia
tn

ric

aonl icabfe

b.

colon

nrmcd

ncrf

rir en

,.]errrri ne

frrear:hecl fhe

q

^-t

Thornton

Mr.

Ior

care

of

n-o n t fI i n a n r
- cY
9err-

ie

of

treatment

he

differently.

surgeries

the

show that

merely

does not

sworn statement

Gross's

"

scay,

(Cornp..
l

opinions

Ex.

expressed
uEv

! ss

)[

Dr.

Gross's
in

causation

d ri o yn r r _ p !
q e u
u

nroximafel

v

y!v^!11'qLsr.)/

nanl

iaanr

end

DefendanL is

n- r v . : l< L m a sr!e l v
o\ r iLqL i
r r

cauqed

reasons

the

-e.rrasf

for

two

these
arranoe
Gross,
i lL-r <

f

of

and

ovnarj-

Federaf

ara
date
nr

naaarl

rFn^-j-

DIRECTED to

further

for
i

nnc

is

and
All

-h'r-nlan'c

iury
were

VA

i--'-ies.

of

notifv

issue
other

Motion

Defendant's

GRAIiITED. Discovery
the

from
(1)

date

an

of

thaL

Order

for

DIRECTED to
Dr.

Ronald

and furnish

LhiS

and

Order
I'h

once

Lime,

order

and

provisions

of

29

hereby

supplement

w'tth

Court

is

this
are

Procedure.

the
At

of

deposiLion

DfRECTEDto

Civil

for

However, Defendant's

part.ies

the

r-.rns'qr-on-

: . r - n n n l i 5 h s c l.

trial

Augusta

DENIED.

Defendant's

out

Rules

reasonabfe

is

days

Defendant

r ^ r it n a q s

L^vs!

the

\2)

CaIe

Plaintiffs

is

13)

purposes:

carrv

a

the

Mr

above,

relief

(50)

sixty

lirnited

and

forth

no.

a I t - er n a r i v e

REOPENEDfor

\rA's

a

. CONC],USION

set

Summary Judgment (doc.

which

is

t o s u r n m a r yj u d g m e n t .

not entitled

III

For

from

medical

rhere

BeCauSe

emp.Loyees of

the

that

decermine

that

A r.'tttcf :

tha

i nirrrig5.

evidence

sufficient

beyond

concludes

r,'haf l'er

Tl-.rninn'q

M.

go

that

CourL

rF.r:-dinn

causecl

have produced
cou-ld

the

Therefore,

on proximate

an opinion

states

cerms

acceprab.Le

possibility.
nsa, nur! r ir n c
v
i
r c

affidavit

expert

a

^iri

these

the

Court

notice
the

Ruf e
i

wiff

Court's

6e

linited

two

of

26

set

a

pretria.L
prlor

Schedul ing
remain

in

nr.laTc

full

force

( rlar

g.

11 )

not

revised

herein

shall

and

ORDER ENTERED AE
February,

n.|s

ll.tlg Lr- Lcr r

\rE\r!

-

Y ra,

:his

'__\:r,a\
oay
--

201_3.

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

30

of