Webster v. Fairway Management Inc et al

Filing 73

OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge John F Heil, III ; granting 64 Motion in Limine (pll, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEPHANY WEBSTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 22-cv-239-JFH

FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
WALNUT PARK MANOR, L.P.,
JES HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for in Limine. Dkt. No. 64. The motion has been
fully briefed and is ripe for consideration.
Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiff from testifying that her heart condition was caused
by her difficulties with Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants Motion is granted.
ANALYSIS
I.

Standard of review; law applicable.

“The purpose of a motion in limine is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule
in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to the issues that are definitely
set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” Mendelsohn v. Sprint/United
Management Co., 587 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1208 (D. Kan. 2008) aff’d, 402 Fed.App’x 337 (10th Cir.
2010) (quotation and citation omitted). In many instances, evidentiary rulings should be deferred
until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in the
proper context. Id. A court will generally not grant a motion in limine unless the moving party
meets its burden of showing that the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible on all potential

1

grounds.” Tulsa Zoo Management, Inc. v. Peckham Guyton Albers & Viets, Inc., No. 17-CV-644,
2019 WL 1562147, at *1 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2019) (citation and quotation omitted).
II.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine is Granted.

Plaintiff testified at her deposition, and apparently would so testify if given the opportunity
at trial, that her heart condition (atrial fibrillation) was caused because of her difficulties in dealing
with Defendants. Dkt. No. 64 at 1-2. Defendants contend that such testimony amounts to medical
causation testimony and may only be offered by a properly qualified expert witness under Fed. R.
Evid. 702. Plaintiff argues, however, that she only seeks to testify about the onset of her medical
condition and her “personal beliefs” about the condition. Dkt. No. 69 at 2. Defendants are correct,
as explained below. Though Plaintiff may testify as to her own personal experiences and
sensations, the law is clear that she cannot testify that Defendants’ conduct caused her complained
of medical condition.
A. Plaintiff seeks to testify as to the medical causation of her heart condition;
such an opinion may only be offered by an expert witness.
Taken together, Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 provide that, if opinion testimony
is to be based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” then such opinion
testimony may only be rendered by an expert qualified under Rule 702. Regarding medical
causation – that is, opinion testimony that some action caused a medical consequence for plaintiff
– the Tenth Circuit has written:
It is uniformly held that where injuries complained of are of such character as to
require skilled and professional persons to determine the cause and extent thereof,
they must be proved by the testimony of medical experts, but, that a lay witness is
competent to testify concerning those physical injuries and conditions which are
susceptible to observation by an ordinary person.
Franklin v. Shelton, 250 F.2d 92, 97 (10th Cir.1957); see also, Zartner v. Miller, 760 F.
App’x 558, 563-64 (10th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (“when an injury lacks an obvious origin and
2

multiple causes are possible, expert medical testimony is necessary to prove causation….”);
Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1221 (D. Kan. 2007) (Plaintiff would not be
permitted to testify that use of medication caused certain side effects); Lynch v. L'Oreal USA S/D,
Inc., No. 11-CV-01343-RBJ-MWJ, 2012 WL 4356231, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 24, 2012) (Plaintiff
not qualified to testify as to cause of her facial injuries).
Plaintiff’s heart condition is not the sort of condition the cause of which is readily
understandable by a layman or “susceptible to observation by an ordinary person”; rather, it is a
complex disorder the etiology of which is likely complex and multifaceted. Shelton, 250 F.2d at
97.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine is GRANTED in
accordance with the foregoing opinion; no lay witness, including Plaintiff, may testify regarding
the causal relationship between Plaintiff’s tenancy at Walnut Park Manor and Plaintiff’s heart
condition.
Dated this 7th day of March, 2025

____________________________________
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3