Diallo v. Ruan Transport Corporation et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court reviewed the defendants' submissions mindful of the "liberal standard of admissibility for expert opinions" embodied in Fed. R. Evid. 702 and the command of Fed. R. Evid. 403 that evidence be e xcluded from a proceeding if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger(s) of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jurors. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-97 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also co nsidered whether the proposed opinion evidence will assist the jurors in performing their fact-finding task. Based on the Court's analysis of the defendants' submissions, the Court finds that: i) the methodologies the physicians empl oyed, which include reviewing medical records and diagnostic images, performing physical examinations where warranted, and drawing upon professional training and experience, are reliable; ii) the physicians' opinions will be premised on su fficient facts and data; and 3) the opinions elicited from the physician witnesses will assist the jurors in understanding relevant medical-related issues that are beyond the ken of the typical juror and that will likely constitute a signific ant portion of the evidence presented at the trial. Therefore, the defendants may elicit opinion evidence, at the trial of this action, from the three physicians identified above. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 9/23/2021) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
OUSMANE H. DIALLO,
:
Plaintiff,
- against RUAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION and
ERIC C. RAMIREZ,

:
:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
18-CV-1834 (KNF)

:

Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

At the trial of this negligence action, which arose out of an automobile accident, the
defendants want to elicit opinion evidence, as contemplated by Rules 702 and 703 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence, from Howard Kiernan, M.D., a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon, Allan
Rubenstein, M.D., who is board certified in psychiatry and neurology, and Jonathan S. Luchs, M.D.,
who is board certified in diagnostic radiology. To enable the Court to fulfill its gatekeeping
obligation, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993),
and determine, inter alia, whether the prospective physician witnesses should be allowed to give
opinion evidence at the trial of this action, the defendants submitted to the Court: 1) a memorandum
of law in support of allowing the physicians to provide opinion evidence at the trial; 2) two
physicians’ reports prepared after they reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and conducted
physical examinations of him; 3) a physician’s report prepared after he reviewed diagnostic images
made of the plaintiff; and 4) each physician’s curriculum vitae. See Docket Entry No. 94.
The Court reviewed the defendants’ submissions mindful of the “liberal standard of
admissibility for expert opinions” embodied in Fed. R. Evid. 702 and the command of Fed. R. Evid.
403 that evidence be excluded from a proceeding if its probative value is substantially outweighed
by the danger(s) of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jurors. Nimely v. City of

New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-97 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also considered whether the proposed
opinion evidence will assist the jurors in performing their fact-finding task. Based on the Court’s
analysis of the defendants’ submissions, the Court finds that: i) the methodologies the physicians
employed, which include reviewing medical records and diagnostic images, performing physical
examinations where warranted, and drawing upon professional training and experience, are reliable;
ii) the physicians’ opinions will be premised on sufficient facts and data; and 3) the opinions elicited
from the physician witnesses will assist the jurors in understanding relevant medical-related issues
that are beyond the ken of the typical juror and that will likely constitute a significant portion of the
evidence presented at the trial. Therefore, the defendants may elicit opinion evidence, at the trial of
this action, from the three physicians identified above.
Dated: New York, New York
September 23, 2021

SO ORDERED: