Labouliere v. Our Lady of the Lake Foundation et al

Filing 157

RULING denying 130 Motion for Reconsideration on Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 8/31/2020. (EDC)

Case 3:16-cv-00785-SDD-SDJ

Document 157

08/31/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KATRINA RIVERS LABOULIERE,
individually and on behalf of the Estate of
KATHERINE SMITH

CIVIL ACTION NO: 16-785

versus

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK

OUR LADY OF THE LAKE HOSPITAL,
INC.

MAGISTRATE WILDER-DOOMES

RULING
Before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Motion Limine1 by the
Defendant, Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc. (“OLOL”), The Motion is opposed by the
Plaintiff, Katrina Rivers Labouliere, who is proceeding on behalf of her deceased mother,
Katherine Smith.2 For the reasons which follow, the Motion for Reconsideration shall be
DENIED.
In the Motion before the Court, Defendant OLOL re-doubles its effort to exclude
Plaintiff’s expert witness Jody N. Prysock, M.S., C.I. (“Prysock”). OLOL argues that the
Court failed in its gatekeeping under Daubert3 asserting that Prysock lacks expert
qualifications and that her opinions are unreliable because of her reliance on allegedly
flawed or inaccurate information and methodology.
I.

PRYSOCK’S QUALIFICATIONS
OLOL argues that Prysock has an “utter lack of professional experience,

education, training” and that the Court failed to “rely upon any specific experience,

1

Rec. Doc. 130.
Rec. Doc. 131.
3
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
2

1

Case 3:16-cv-00785-SDD-SDJ

Document 157

08/31/20 Page 2 of 5

education, or technical knowledge possessed by Ms. Prysock in its determination that her
opinions were reliable.”

OLOL conflates qualifications and reliability.

Prysock’s

qualifications as revealed in her CV4 show the following:
A. Experience
July 2013 – Present - Freelance Sign Language Interpreter/Trainer/Consultant
October 2008 – July 2013 – Director of Language, Cultural and Disability Services,
NYU Langone Medical Center, NY, NY
October 2002 – October 2008 - Manager, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program
NYU Langone Medical Center, NY, NY
September 1995 – October 2002 - Clinical Deafness Liaison, Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Program at New York Presbyterian Hospital, Westchester Division, White Plains, NY
NYU Langone Medical Center, job responsibilities included:
Founded and developed the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Program and Language,
Cultural and Disability Services;
Developed Language Access Plan, language access policies, ADA and
nondiscrimination policies;
Managed all sign language and spoken language interpreting services, (staff,
freelance, and agency);
Managed translation services
B. Education and Certifications
1996 Masters of Science, Applied Counseling - Long Island University, New York
1991 Bachelor of Science, Summa cum Laude - Mercy College, New York
2001 Advanced Seminar and Observation - 40 hours, Mental Health Interpreting,
University of Rochester
2000 Certificate of Interpretation, National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf

4

Rec. Doc. 107-1.

2

Case 3:16-cv-00785-SDD-SDJ

Document 157

08/31/20 Page 3 of 5

C. Publications and Professional Contributions
Co-author of a guide for effective communication in healthcare
Adjunct professor at the CUNY School of Professional Studies, 2007-present
Chair of the Healthcare Access Expert Committee, National Association of the Deaf
The Court reiterates its earlier finding that Prysock is qualified by “knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education”5 to render opinion testimony in the field of Deaf
communication in a medical setting.
II.

RELIABILITY
For the first time in its Motion for Reconsideration, OLOL advances 2 new

arguments: 1) that Prysock’s reliance on a site visit to OLOL as a basis for her opinions
was improper, and 2) that Prysock’s reliance OLOL’s policies was flawed because the
policy document she reviewed incomplete.6 In its extensive Memorandum in support of
its Motion to exclude Prysock7, OLOL did not challenge these reliance materials. In a
legally well-supported opposition memorandum, the Plaintiff correctly argues that these
new issues are improper and untimely.8 This Court is chagrin to consider arguments
raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration without adequate justification and
OLOL provides none.
Without citation to any legal authority OLOL argues that Prysock’s reliance on
observations from the site visit is somehow improper because the site visit was not a
deposition and was scheduled in connection with another case. OLOL’s arguments are
utterly unsupported. As pointed out by the Plaintiff the site inspection took place in

5

Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Rec. Doc. 130-1 p. 7.
7
Rec. Doc. 94-1.
8
Rec. Doc. 131.
6

3

Case 3:16-cv-00785-SDD-SDJ

Document 157

08/31/20 Page 4 of 5

November 2017. Defendant had notice that Ms. Prysock was going to attend the site
inspection since October 2017. Prysock was designated as an expert witness in March
2019 and OLOL did not raise any objections to the inclusion of this site visit in Ms.
Prysock’s report when it received her report in June 2019. Prysock was deposed in
September 2019 and questioned about the site inspection. Yet, Defendant did not raise
the argument that Prysock’s reliance on observations from the site visit was improper in
its Motion in Limine filed in October 2019. OLOL failed to challenge Prysock’s reliance on
the site visit until after its motion in limine was rejected by the Court.
Now, for the first time, OLOL advances the legally unsupported position that
Prysock’s reliance on the site visit was improper and renders her report unreliable and
her opinion infirm because the site visit was not a deposition and was not conducted ”in
this matter; rather, it was performed in a separate matter involving a request for
preliminary injunction”.9
This is one of several related cases, involving disability discrimination claims by
deaf patients against OLOL. The related cases, including the instant matter were
consolidated for discovery.10 Without objection, Prysock issued a single joint report for
the five related OLOL cases.11
OLOL concedes that “[t]he purpose of the inspection was to review the modalities
available at the time of the inspection”.12 OLOL may cross examine Prysock on the
veracity of her observations and on her recollection of statements allegedly made by an

9

Rec. Doc. 130-1 p. 2.
Rec. Doc. 42, 64. Ultimately, this matter was severed from the consolidation order because of a stay
Order. Rec. Doc. 66.
11
Rec. Doc. 94-3.
12
Rec. Doc. 130-1 p. 4.
10

4

Case 3:16-cv-00785-SDD-SDJ

Document 157

08/31/20 Page 5 of 5

OLOL employee at the time of the site visit. Notably, the OLOL employee who allegedly
made statements recounted by Prysock was deposed for trial purposes by OLOL on
September 11, 2019.13 Plaintiff represents that she was not questioned about her
recollection of the site visit.
OLOL additionally argues that Prysock’s review and criticism of OLOL policies is
flawed and renders her opinions unreliable because the policy she reviewed was
“incomplete and outdated”. As part of her report, Ms. Prysock reviewed and redlined
OLOL’s policies for Care of the Sensory (Hearing, Speech, Visually) Impaired Patients.14
If Prysock reviewed an “outdated” copy of OLOL’s policies as argued by OLOL, this can
be adequately addressed on cross-examination. “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.”15
III.

CONCLUSION
For the above outlined reasons, OLOL’s Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Motion

Limine16 is hereby DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on August 31, 2020.

S

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

13

Rec. Doc. 130-2.
Rec. Doc. 94-3 p. 12; Rec. Doc. 107-2.
15
U.S. v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Situated in Leflore County, State of Miss., 80 F.3d 1074, 1077
(5th Cir.1996)(citing Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir.1987)).
16
Rec. Doc. 130.
14

5