Quiggins v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government et al
Filing
134
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 10/11/12; Defendants motion to exclude expert testimony is DENIED; Defendants motion to exclude reference to dental abscess from the medical records is DENIED, but the Court will not allow these references to be used as medical opinions;Defendants motion in limine is SUSTAINED and the Court will exclude reference to deliberate indifference, the video of an amputation and the accreditation report; Defendants motion to exclude Dr. Barcla ys supplemental expert report is DENIED in part and Dr. Barclay may testify as to his opinion of the CT scan. He may not make reference to the opinion of Dr. Allan Farman. Defendants may retake the depositions of Dr. Barclay and may, within 30 days, submit additional expert disclosure concerning the CT scan results. The Court does not intend to allow further testimony on the subject. Defendants motion at conference to continue the trial date is SUSTAINED and the new trial date will be reiterated in a separate order. cc:counsel (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-516-H
MELISSA R. QUIGGINS
PLAINTIFF
V.
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT;
MARK E. BOLTON;
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.; and
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The parties have filed a number of motions concerning expert witnesses. The Court
conducted a lengthy conference to discuss these issues in depth.
Defendants have moved to strike Plaintiff’s experts because the opinions expressed are
speculative. The Court believes that those experts can testify to opinions expressed with a
reasonable degree of medical probability. Certainly, Defendants have testimony which call these
opinions into question. However, the jury is entitled to hear all expert testimony.
Defendants have moved to strike the supplemental expert disclosures of Dr. Barclay
which offers a new opinion of Baptist Hospital’s CT scan results. The supplementation does not
alter Dr. Barclay’s ultimate conclusions, but does seek to support it with a new opinion of the CT
scan results. The Court concludes that the new opinion is important enough to be part of the
case. The use of the new opinion is unfairly prejudicial to Defendants because the CT scan
results have been unchallenged through two years of litigation until only a few months prior to
trial. The Court exercises its discretion to allow Dr. Barclay’s new opinion, but only under the
condition that Defendants be allowed to rebut the new opinion and that trial is continued.
The Court discussed other pending motions as indicated in this order. Being otherwise
sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to exclude reference to “dental
abscess” from the medical records is DENIED, but the Court will not allow these references to
be used as medical opinions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine is SUSTAINED and the
Court will exclude reference to deliberate indifference, the video of an amputation and the
accreditation report.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. Barclay’s
supplemental expert report is DENIED in part and Dr. Barclay may testify as to his opinion of
the CT scan. He may not make reference to the opinion of Dr. Allan Farman.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may retake the depositions of Dr. Barclay
and may, within 30 days, submit additional expert disclosure concerning the CT scan results.
The Court does not intend to allow further testimony on the subject.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion at conference to continue the trial
date is SUSTAINED and the new trial date will be reiterated in a separate order.
October 11, 2012
cc:
Counsel of Record
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?