Crawford et al v. Godinez et al

Filing 128

ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, Defendants' first motion in limine (Doc. 121 at 2) is GRANTED. The Court will take up the remaining motions in limine at a later date. A Status Conference is set for 4/21/2022 at 2:00 PM via Zoom video conference before Judge David W. Dugan. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 4/11/2022. (dmw2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY CRAWFORD and
HOWARD TESSMAN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
RANDY DAVIS,
NORMAN SUITS, and
JAMES BARNARD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-cv-1067-DWD

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion in limine. (Doc. 121). All parties have filed
motions in limine, which contain several individual motions in limine, and both motions
are fully briefed. (Docs. 120–22 & 127). However, at this time, the Court will take up only
Defendants’ first motion in limine. For the following reasons, Defendants’ first motion in
limine (Doc. 121 at 2) is due to be granted.
Defendants seek to bar Plaintiffs from offering inadmissible testimony as to the
causation of any alleged medical or mental health conditions. (Doc. 121 at 2). Defendants
argue that neither Plaintiff has medical expertise and therefore cannot offer his lay
opinions about the cause of any alleged medical conditions. A lay witness may offer
testimony that is “rationally based on the witness’s perception” and “not based on
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. So, when an
injury and its cause are clearly connected in some obvious way such that common

experiences and observations explain the relationship, expert testimony is not required.
See Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir. 2009) (“No expert testimony is
required to assist jurors in determining the cause of injuries that are within their common
experiences or observations”) (holding that a prisoner could testify that a guard “beat
him up and that it hurt really bad”). However, a causal connection that cannot be
explained to a reasonable degree of certainty without scientific, technical or specialized
knowledge requires expert testimony. See, e.g., Wooler v. Hickman Cty., Kentucky, No.
5:05CV-247-R, 2008 WL 5412826, at *13 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 30, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Wooler v.
Hickman Cty., Ky., 377 F. App'x 502 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussing Eighth Amendment claims
that lacked evidence of causation because experts could not testify as to the specific cause
of a medical condition to a reasonable degree of medical certainty). Thus, it follows that
Rule 701 does not permit a lay witness to offer opinions about medical causation. See
Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2001) (finding inmate incompetent to testify
in his conditions of confinement case that there is a causal relationship between exercise
and healthy gums).
Plaintiff Anthony Crawford claims that the contaminated standing water in the
showers at Dixon Springs caused his feet to develop fungal infections. (Doc. 82 at 5 & 13).
To support that claim it is necessary that Crawford provide testimony to a reasonable
degree of certainty that the particular contaminants in the water could and likely did
bring about the fungal infections. To cross the causation bridge, he must have scientific,
technical or other specialized knowledge-based testimony. According to the record, there
is no indication that he holds any specialized knowledge. He is unqualified to provide
2

medical or scientific evidence showing the relationship between the shower water and
his fungal infection. An infectious disease specialist or dermatologist might well be able
to draw a causal connection, but Crawford’s supposition that there was contaminated
water and that he later developed a fungal infection is, at best, a weak correlation which
falls far short of causation.

1

Testimony from Crawford about his perceptions of pain,

discomfort, or other symptomology, which would be otherwise admissible, are too far
removed from causally connecting the shower water and the source of that pain or
discomfort. That connection is not one that would be obvious to a layperson. Torres v.
City of Chicago, No. 12 C 7844, 2015 WL 12843889, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2015); Denton v.
Ne. Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp., No. 02 C 2220, 2005 WL 1459203, at *5 (N.D. Ill. June 16,
2005)
Plaintiff Howard Tessman may have slightly more leeway to testify as to the cause
of his injuries. Tessman claims that he fell and hit his head when Defendant Barnard hit
him in the side. (Doc. 74-12 at 15). He reports that he was treated for a mild concussion
and that he had blood in his urine for the next two days. (Doc. 74-12 at 15–16). Like the
prisoner in Hendrickson, Tessman could testify that his fall hurt his head or otherwise
caused him immediate pain. But Tessman is not qualified to testify that his fall caused a
concussion or that the fall caused him to urinate blood for two days. See Shea v. Kohler,
No. 12 C 50201, 2017 WL 3475683, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2017), aff'd sub nom. Shea v.
Winnebago Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 746 F. App'x 541 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Hendrickson, 589 F.3d

1

Crawford has also blamed his fungal infections on persistent wetness due to holes in his shoes and socks.
(Doc. 80 at 22).

3

at 892) (finding that plaintiff could not testify that battery caused a concussion but could
describe symptoms he experienced before, during, and after the battery). Tessman could
therefore testify to the nature and timing of his fall and the nature and timing of his
symptoms but not to the causal relationship between the two, except for straightforward
observations that the fall caused him immediate pain.
For these reasons, Defendants’ first motion in limine (Doc. 121 at 2) is GRANTED.
The Court will take up the remaining motions in limine at a later date. Because Plaintiffs
do not intend to call any expert witnesses (Doc. 112 at 1), their ability to offer evidence as
to the cause of their alleged conditions is severely limited. As such, the Court has serious
concerns about the Plaintiffs’ ability to present evidence of damages resulting from the
condition of the showers at Dixon Springs or Tessman’s ability to show that Barnard’s
alleged use of force was more than de minimis. Accordingly, a status conference is SET
for April 21, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom video conference to discuss Plaintiffs’ ability to
present evidence of damages at trial.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2022
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge

4