Lewis et al v. Cain et al

Filing 321

RULING granting 191 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Jacqueline Moore. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/27/2017. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

15-318-SDD- RLB

BURL CAIN, ET AL.
RULING
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Jacqueline
Moore.1 The motion is opposed.2 For the reasons herein, the motion shall be DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are inmates at Louisiana State Penitentiary (“Angola”) who bring this

action on their own behalf and, putatively “on behalf of a class of prisoners who the named
Plaintiffs claim are now, or will in the future be, subjected to the medical care policies and
practices of [Angola].”3 Plaintiffs allege that the inmate medical care at Angola violates
the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the ADA.4 Plaintiffs seek declaratory
and injunctive relief.
Central to the Eighth Amendment claim is the medical standard of care owed to
prisoners by the confining authority. This Court has held that “[t]he standard of care
imposed upon the confining authority in providing for the medical needs of prisoners is
that those services be adequate and reasonable.”5 The Eighth Amendment “does not, by

1

Rec. Doc. 191.
Rec. Doc. 202.
3
Rec. Doc. 1, p. 52, ¶ 149.
4
Rec. Doc. 1.
5
Bouchereau v. Gautreaux, 2015 WL 5321285, at *14 (M.D .La. Sept. 11, 2015).
2

1

its precise words, mandate a certain level of medical care for prisoners.”6 “The Supreme
Court has interpreted it as imposing a duty on prison officials to ‘ensure that inmates
receive adequate ... medical care.’’’7 The question of fact in this case is whether the
Plaintiffs received “adequate care” while incarcerated at Angola.
On this issue, Defendants seek to offer the expert opinion and testimony of
Jacqueline Moore, PhD (“Dr. Moore”) who assessed “the Defendants’ policies and
practices regarding correctional care”.8 Moore reached opinions regarding Angola’s
healthcare delivery in several areas, including organizational and management structure,
nursing structure, EMT’s, medical assistants, staffing levels and patterns, credentialing,
health screens, appraisals and examinations, emergency, chronic, and acute care
delivery. In reaching her opinions, Dr. Moore, relied, inter alia, on standards promulgated
by the American Correctional Association (“ACA”).9
Plaintiffs move to exclude Dr. Moore’s opinions and testimony arguing that her
opinions will provide no aid to the trier of fact because her methodology was flawed and
therefore her opinions are unreliable.10 Plaintiffs do not challenge Dr. Moore’s
qualifications.
Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Moore measured the care at LSP against “non-medical”
standards published by the ACA and, thus, her methodology is flawed and her opinions
unreliable. Plaintiffs submit that the ACA is a trade organization comprised of corrections
officials and that the medical care delivery standards published by the ACA are not an

6

Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir.1999); Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006)
Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir. 2006), citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114
S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L.Ed. 2d 811 (1994).
8
Rec. Doc. 192-2.
9
See Note 12, infra.
10
Rec. Doc. 229-1.
7

2

appropriate benchmark against which to evaluate the care delivered at Angola. In
essence, Plaintiffs contend that Moore’s reliance on standards promulgated by the ACA,
a trade association, is fundamentally flawed and that standards articulated by the National
Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”), which Plaintiffs represent were
developed by an association of medical professionals, authoritative on the minimal
standard of care.
The Defendants counter that Dr. Moore examined and provides opinions regarding
Angola’s medical delivery policies and practices and that the ACA was only one aspect
of review. Dr. Moore’s report points out that Angola “has referenced the American
Correctional Association Standards (ACA) in many of its policies.”11 Moore concedes that
the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) also publishes
standards, but she looked to the ACA standards, among others,12 because those are the
standards to which Angola’s policies refer.
II.

ANALYSIS
The Plaintiffs’ challenge is to the basis of Dr. Moore’s opinions. Dr. Moore

described the NCCHC standards as “more aspirational” and the ACA standards as “more
realistic”.13 In any event, Moore testified that a correction facility “can practice care that
is not constitutional and still be accredited” under either the ACA or the NCCHC.14 The
Court finds that whatever standards the prison abides by, or fails to abide by, is one factor
in a fact intensive inquiry into whether the facility delivers adequate and reasonable care

11

Rec. Doc. 191-2, p. 4.
Moore indicates that she also relied on the “Nurse Practice Acts, Rules and Regulations for EMS staff.”
Rec. Doc. 192-2, p. 4.
13
Rec. Doc. 192-3, p. 32.
14
Rec. Doc. 192-3, p. 37-38.
12

3

required by the Constitution. “[A] district court has broad discretion to determine whether
a body of evidence relied upon by an expert is sufficient to support that expert's opinion.”15
The Court is persuaded that, in this case, the basis of Moore’s opinions is more germane
to the credibility of her opinions, not admissibility. “As a general rule, questions relating
to the bases and sources of an expert's opinion affect the weight to be assigned to that
opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury's consideration.”16
The Court’s role as a gatekeeper does not replace the traditional adversary
system. The Court declines to exclude Dr. Moore and, instead, will leave the validity of
the bases and underpinnings of Dr. Moore’s opinions to the able skill of counsel on crossexamination.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Jacqueline

Moore17 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on September 27, 2017.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

15

Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 354 (5th Cir.2007).
United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Sit. in Leflore County, Miss., 80 F.3d 1074, 1077 (5th
Cir.1996) (quoting Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir.1987)).
17
Rec. Doc. 191.
16

4