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)

Download PDF
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] 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'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 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^ 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 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/<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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?