Saterfield v. Baldwin et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 40 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 1/18/2019. (kll)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EAST ST. LOUIS DIVISION
LLOYD SATERFIELD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. RITZ, and
DR. SMITH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 18-cv-560-JPG-GCS

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
In March 2018, Plaintiff Lloyd Saterfield filed suit alleging that Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his chronic lower back pain and related medical
issues. On June 1, 2018, Saterfield filed a motion for appointment of expert witnesses
(Doc. 30). According to the motion, appointment of a neurologist and a spine expert
is necessary pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a) because this case involves
complex medical language and information. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson denied the
motion on June 12, 2018, finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 does not
authorize the Court to appoint a medical expert, at Saterfield’s request, to perform
an examination and that Rule 706 was not the basis of Saterfield’s request. To the
extent that it was the basis for the request, Judge Wilkerson noted that Saterfield’s
chronic back pain does not require an expert opinion because it can be easily
understood by a layperson.

Now before the Court is a June 18, 2018 motion for reconsideration of Judge
Wilkerson’s order. (Doc. 40). Saterfield argues that a physical examination is
necessary under Rule 35 because his medical condition is disputed. He also argues
that a layperson cannot understand the meaning or severity of certain medical terms
related to his chronic back pain and that an expert should be appointed to assist him
pursuant to Rule 706.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 authorizes a party to request a physical
examination of another party if that second party’s physical condition has been placed
in controversy. It is a discovery tool, but it is not designed to grant Saterfield the
relief he seeks, i.e., an expert witness to examine him. Similarly, Federal Rule of
Evidence 706 allows appointment of a neutral expert witness if it is necessary to help
the trier-of-fact to understand complex information – not to represent the interest of
one party. See Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443 (7th Cir. 2016); Ledford v.

Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358-359 (7th Cir. 1997).
Saterfield alleges that Defendants Ritz and Smith were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need because they were responsible for denying
requests for further testing and treatment of his chronic lower back pain that were
submitted by his treating physicians. Prison officials act with deliberate indifference
when they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health by being
aware of facts from which an inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists. See Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005).

At this stage, there is no basis on which to conclude that a layperson or any
trier-of-fact would require expert testimony to understand whether Saterfield’s
medical condition is serious or whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
it. In large part, this case hinges on whether Defendants’ refusal to follow the treating
physicians’ recommendations rises to the level of deliberate indifference. The
anticipated testimony related to that question will be comprehensible to a layperson.

See Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 659 (7th Cir. 2004); Ledford, 105 F.3d at 359-360.
Should the discovery conducted in this case develop a factual record that will not be
comprehensible to laypeople, the Court may appoint a neutral expert in the future.
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff Lloyd Saterfield’s motion to reconsider
(Doc. 40) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 18, 2019.

Digitally signed by Magistrate
Judge Gilbert C. Sison
Date: 2019.01.18 15:08:40
-06'00'

______________________________
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge