Jordan et al v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 467

ORDER denying 459 Motion to Exclude. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 12/22/2017. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MEAGHIN JORDAN, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-220-CWR-LRA

MAXFIELD & OBERTON HOLDINGS
LLC, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The plaintiffs have moved to exclude (in part) the expert testimony of Dr. Angela
Shannon, a pediatric gastroenterologist. They contend that Dr. Shannon’s testimony becomes
unreliable and conjectural when she opines that Braylon Jordan may not need a series of
transplants. That kind of testimony should come from a transplant surgeon, the plaintiffs say.
The legal standard is well-established. See Guy v. Crown Equipment Corp., 394 F.3d 320,
325 (5th Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Court must weed out unreliable and irrelevant expert
testimony, see Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 352 (5th Cir. 2007), but
otherwise let the jury benefit from “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary
evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof,” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993). In other words, “in determining the admissibility of expert testimony,
the district court should approach its task with proper deference to the jury’s role as the arbiter of
disputes between conflicting opinions.” United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, 80 F.3d 1074,
1077 (5th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The legal standard requires today’s dispute to be resolved by a jury. Dr. Shannon is wellqualified to testify about the nature and treatment of injuries like Braylon’s. When her testimony
moves into disputing (as premature) the medical necessity of future transplant surgeries, the
parties are free to elicit how her training and experience are as a member of a treatment team

working in conjunction with a surgeon, and not as a surgeon herself. The jury will give her
testimony the weight it sees fit.
The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of December, 2017.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2