Hedgepath v. Lee County, Kentucky et al
Filing
116
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that 55 MOTION to Exclude by Mary Hedgepath opinions of Defendants' Experts is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 11/7/2011.(GLD)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-83-JBC
MARY HEDGEPATH, Executor of the
Estate of Shannon D. Reed, Deceased,
V.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LEE COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al.,
DEFENDANTS.
***********
Pending before the court is plaintiff Hedgepath’s motion to exclude the
opinions of defendants’ experts at trial, R. 55, which will be considered a motion in
limine. For the reasons explained below, Hedgepath’s motion will be denied.
A. Robert Powell
Powell worked more than twenty years with the Kentucky Department of
Corrections and since then has spent almost a decade in criminal justice consulting
and has published many sets of standards for Kentucky jails. Because of his
knowledge, skill, training, experience and education, Powell is qualified to testify
regarding his conclusions that are based on his examination of the evidence. See
Fed. R. Evid. 702; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaiel, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); In re
Scrap Metal Antitrust Lit., 527 F.3d 517, 528-529 (6th Cir. 2008). Powell’s
expected testimony is relevant because it will assist the trier of fact in
understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue, particularly whether the
defendants’ actions were compliant with pertinent laws, regulations, and policies.
See Id. Powell’s expected testimony is reliable. His conclusions are based on his
close examination of the evidence, and he relies on his experience and training in
criminal justice. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. 137; In re Scrap
Metal, 527 F.3d at 528-529.
Hedgepath claims that Powell should not be allowed to offer an opinion on
whether defendants were “deliberately indifferent” in their dealings with Reed. The
Sixth Circuit addressed the issue of whether an expert may offer an opinion on
deliberate indifference in Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1353-54. But in
that case, the expert was offering an opinion on whether the city’s policies and
training programs on the use of deadly force by police officers demonstrated
deliberate indifference on the part of the city that would give rise to municipal
liability under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. In that context, “deliberate indifference” was a
conclusion of law. In the context of Robert Powell’s opinion in the present case,
the mindset of the defendants during Shannon Reed’s incarceration, as it relates to
the defendants’ awareness of any health risk Reed faced, is a question of fact on
which Powell is qualified to give an opinion.
Hedgepath’s arguments asserting the weakness of Powell’s expert opinion
go toward the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility. See Mclean v.
988011 Ontario Ltd. 224 F.3d 797, 801 (6th Cir. 2000). Hedgepath will have an
opportunity to cross-examine the experts on matters raised during direct
examination. Due to Powell’s qualifications and the relevance and reliability of his
expected testimony, he will be allowed to testify.
B. Johnathon J. Lipman
Lipman is a widely published scholar in the highly specialized field of
neuropharmacology. Because of his knowledge, skill, training, experience and
education, Lipman is qualified to testify regarding his conclusions that are based on
his examination of the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Kumho Tire Co. v.
Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517,
528-529 (6th Cir. 2008). Lipman’s expected testimony is relevant because it will
assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue,
particularly the behavioral and physiological effects of the drugs in Reed’s system,
and the impact of drug tolerance. See Id. His conclusions are firmly grounded in
his specialized observations made during his examination of the evidence.
Lipman’s expected testimony is reliable. His conclusions are based on his
close examination of the evidence, and he relies on his experience and training in
neuropharmacology. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. 137; In re
Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 528-529. Because of Lipman’s qualifications and the
relevance and reliability of his expected testimony, he will be allowed to testify.
C.
J. David Talley
Talley has vast experience in practice and research as a cardiologist.
Because of his knowledge, skill, training, experience, and education, Talley is also
qualified to testify regarding his conclusions that are based on his examination of
the evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137
(1999); In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 528-529 (6th Cir. 2008).
Talley’s expected testimony is relevant because it will assist the trier of fact
in understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue, specifically whether
an underlying medical condition may have been a contributing factor in Reed’s
death. See Id. Talley’s expected testimony is reliable. His conclusions are based on
his close examination of the evidence, and he relies on his experience and training
in the specialized field of cardiology. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Kumho Tire, 526 U.S.
137; In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 528-529.
Due to their qualifications and the relevance and reliability of their expected
testimony, Powell, Lipman, and Talley will be allowed to testify. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Mary Hedgepath’s motion to exclude the opinions of
defendants’ experts (R.55) is DENIED.
Signed on November 7, 2011
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?