Maley v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying 69 Motion to limit the testimony of Plaintiffs' medical expert. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 2/8/18. (wwp)

IN THE I'NITED STATES DTSTRICT COT'RT FOR
TIIE SOIIIHERN DISTRICT OF CEORGIA
SAVAIiINAHDIVISION
ErFT T\lna

I trtr MAT Fv

i n r'li rri drra I I rr

and on behalf of the Estate
M a L L h e wC l i n t o n L of l i n ,
L
d e c e a s e d ; a n d G E N EL O E I N ,
Ly;
individual

of

Dl:irfiffc

CASENO. CV416-O6O
CORIZON HEALTH, ]NC. , A
CORIZON,
Delaware Corporationt
Limited
LLC, a Missouri
. - . ' . 'v- H A T H A M
!,rorJ!t!
Ly
\-wltParry.
COUNTY, a Georgia County; ROY
HARRIS; ESTATE OE AL ST.
LAWRENCE; JOHN WILCHER,
i-rl ividrra- rrr anrj 'n hiS
oFrir-ial
r-:n:ri -rz as Jaif
D
Administrato'
SCOTT KENNE Y,
M . D . r A D A M A RG O N Z A L E Z , M . D . ;
A N d V J R GI N I A O ' N E ] ] , L ;

#;,h3lil$51-'??iEI.
Fllod tn Otllce

ORDER
Before
Virginia

O'Neil-1,

Testimony,
the

is

and

Scott

(Doc. 69.)

testimony

Wickliffe.

Court

the

Eor

In

their

Plaintiffs'

of
Lhe

Defendants

following

Kennedy' s
motion,

Hea.Ith,

Corizon
Motion

to

Defendants

Limit

Expert

seek lo
Dr.

rnedica.L expert,
reasons,

Inc. '

Defendants'

limit

Charfes

moLion

is

DENIED.
In
white

201A,

Matthew

incarcerated

at

Loffin

died

from

medical

Chatham County Detention

complications

Center

(*CCDC")'

I

(Doc.

92 aL 1--2.\

Corizon

Heafth

deta jnees
a.\rrrj- \/

at

At

:r

6

\

his

Plaj ntiff

1. )

Cene

Plaintiffs

ll

r ^q : c
w rD

an

Ly

all-ege

'

Kannadrr

M€dical

(Id.
mother/

q)
Ja.

\
t

Tn

Defendants

while

Loflin
In

Dr.

indifferent
was detained

support

Charfes

nr

lilf
r-art.e
hi<

i f fa
ie

nni
mrr

i ni\'

^^-^aetiva

\-or!rr\,i'LyuPdLlry.
in

ihif

(Id.
|

.^r:1,, -Cn
.

PIainLiff

aS

the

of

Brenda Mal-ey.

Estare

Corizon

MaLrhew

Lof-Lin, s

joined
l-ha

of

suit

aman.la.]

father,
in

his

n n_ [ . L Pl r r - r _n_r ,L\ mn
* .

Heafth,

Inc.,

Scott

Loflj-n, s

were

nedicaf

needs

critical

c.l-aim, Pfaintiffs
69-2,

Afrer

Ex.

1. )

certified

reviewing

have consulted
Dr.
in

Wickfiffe
the

rhe facts

field
of

this

to a reasonabl-e degree of medicaf
Lof-lin died of the complication
of
heart
failure
and
underlying
rt,L5
death was related
to the marked
i:t-i^h
of appropriate
rreatment
for his
Mr

7.)

at

thal

nnirian

]-h:]-

^^-ll^*.,^*^+L.,

rial:rr

nad

r-,rrcrt h.,;

defendants

been board

Ex. 3.)

\.raq arin

at the CCDC. (Id.)

(Doc.

who has

(Doc 69-2,

l i ril r k l

their

Wickfiffe.

cardiologjsc
I91 6.

of

to

Charham

7.)

at

O' NeiII,
deliberately

to

services
with

n --. - -a f a-n r l r n

amended compfainr,

I Doc

Defendant

Director.

h
- rr r

subsequencly

that

medical
cont.racL

SCOtt

and on behalf

fn

a

a r ' rnpl fn, r ry E i \ , r
sm
v arl

loll.in's

LofIin,

LdPd\-t

Dr.

Administrator.

death,

{Doc.

to

Regional

jndividually

suit

Loflin.

O'l\Iai

Services

After
brought

as the

\/irnirie

the Health

Defendant.

detention.

provided

CCDC pursuant

DefendanL Corizon
Defonrlanj-

Loffin's

of

("Corizon")

Inc,
the

fT"l

time

the

with
is

a

since
casel

-^ndoqriva

any

ha:ri

inmrrnn:f

improves
.n

of

sLage

^:rrl

in

i.in

f.ri

h\/

che

lrr

dat

h:rro

chances

l-hal-

i f

Alfhnrrah

management

r^'^rrld

hacn

inn

c

nrnnnncic

his

underlying
f raalffanf

It

c

rn.'l

during

nnndi

t inn

:F

o:rliar

of
nr'ar

di;annei

any point

ari.\ral-

hi

su rv i va l'

of

nr^nar

at

been initiated
cl-o:rli

lrrro

is

rn^n^flarnonl

cou.rse of

the

nri^r

r ^

my
h:r]

M:rrh

his

?6r-h

his chances of survival
and long term and short term
out comes would have been improved.
[A1so,] it
opinion that Matthew LofIin
is my additional
received
inadequate
care
while
medicaf
incarcerated
at
the
I /i t . h
Derenrion
Chatham
County
Cenrer,
adequate
treatment
Mathew Loffin
coul,d have had a significant
ram:iniaa

(Doc. 69-2,
\,.-\\.?

1
a
_ ir - f_

Ex. 1. )

(Doc.

u,nrlu ina

in

sncrif

69.)

r-hA

contend

this
'

69*2,

that

Dr.

or

:nn-,r-abfe

tO

use

ls.)

facks

the

* ha

rd i n/r

Def en.lant

carefu.L review,

must

whecher to

consider

the

rarr i nnr

6,

Ex.

-eo:

no exper ience

'w ^ |-' 1 , 6 n " 9
.l
: r^

n-

Wickllffe

Plaintiffs'

of

has

KF^nF.lv

l

As
qualifications

c- anda rd

qenera-I.Ly appf icabf e Lo any other

determining

Court

the

admit.Ledly

car L
J c u r | r 9i n n

f

i mnnrr

the CCDC,- After
In

inn:l

rccr

ir-a--.r

limit

tO

Wickliffe

(Doc.

r''f f <'r

director

caek

Dr.

nnrranl-

director.

Defendants
I 6

q

Defe-d:n

experL.

heal-th

c Xpecrancy
J

aS

of

care

a

hea_Lth provj der at.

the Court disagrees.
fimit

Dr

admissibifity

Wickliffe's
of

his

testimony,
testimony

in

In their
rnotion, DefendanLs afso challenge that Dr. Wickliffe
has no experience as a heafrh administraror
and can, therefore,
noL offer
opinion
an expert
as
Lo the
scandard
of
ca.re
icable Lo Defendanr O'Neill.
appl
rlowever, Defendant O,Neil.I was
prevjously
from Lhjs acI ion Dy this
djsmrssed
prior
Courr's
(Doc. 91,\
order.
Accordingly,
the
wiII
Court
not
address
whether Dr. Wicrliffe
Ls qual-iIied
Lo offer
an expert op.inion
with respect to Defendant O'Nelll,

Federaf
Pharm .

Inc. ,

Rule

of

509 U.S.

702

Evidence

579,

(1993)

589

Daubert

Merre-lf

v.

Rule 702 of

the

Dow

Federal

Ru.Lesof Evidence nrovides:

cki

II

qualified

who is

A wirness

avncri

onca

nr

knowledge,

arlln:ri

ractifrr

(a) the
an opinion
or otherwise
if:
f ic,
technj caI,
or oLher special i zed

in the form of
experr 's scientj
know ierirra

as an experu by

f r,einin.r

heln

wi I I

i-np

I riFr

.\f

facc

co

undersLand

(b)
the evi-dence or to determine a fact in issue;
restimony is based on suftLcient
facts
or data;
rha

racf

im.\nv

r.^.,^h

to

rh6

7A2 ts

the

742 Lo
also

the
at

standard
CCDC.

the

onra

While

correctional
offered
the

Dr.

field,

correctional

a provider

rhe

irhlo

rrcq

o.r,dol

nrn'ridarJ

As
In

the

envisioned

by RuIe

that

has

this

fact

that

is

Lo Lof-in's

the
While

medical

of

under Rule

condition,

but

have been Drovided
Dr.

P!rrrrL/

is

594

qualified

he should

L,LIV

fieLd

7Ql

inquiry

Wickliffe

>La!

Rrr19

that

Dr.

care

in

an opinion

view,

of

applied
case,

can offer

"Ir]he

as

nrinninlac

has reliably
facts
of the

Dar:bert, 509 U.S. at

settinq,

has

experL
to the

ral

one."

has no experience
that

t-\f

Wickliffe

Wickliffe

no authoritV

Wickliffe

Dr.

noL only

av-anq'

3. )

rrse

relevanL,

Court's

testify

to

while

and

a ftexible

[]

In

r..q-

whether

refiable

both

nr^/lir-i

and
Lhe
and methods

a^,,.r-

determine

rha

(d)

and methods;
the princip.les
a

ic

the
(c)

has

(Doc. 59-2,

cardiology.

Wlckliffe

Ex.

no

avnerian^a

r . r - - r - kr r . r

.is

immaterial

n^r^^,.^-+

standard

of

care

Defendants are

as a regional-

co work within

certain

is

the

different

correct

heaLth

in

that

director

fimitacions

or

1n
Dr.
as

creaLed

hr;

l-hc

-nrrp.rinn:l

b l r c k l .j f f e ' s
weighL

W i c k l -ri r r fe ' 'ss
f e

are

be

S O O R D E R E Dh i s
t

more

given

Because the
testlmony,
t

nafan/j.ni<t

v v e e j , , Y ,

Lescimony

LhaL shoufd

admissibifity.

carr;n/r

!

ro
Court

lDe lfe n d a n tts ' '
j e endan s

^4
Et

auy of

t-^

,^h.ll6h^ac

app-ropriate.Ly directed
his

restimony,

finds
motion
ron

no

rather

reason

to

(Doc. 69) is

Dr.

aL

the

Lhan its
Iinit

DI .

DENIED.

Februarv 2018.

WILLIAM T. MOORE,
UNITED STATES D] ST

CT COURT
SOUTHERN ISTRICT OF GEORGIA
D