Bieber et al v. Nace et al
Filing
62
ORDER denying deft Eastern's motion in limine 38 to preclude report & testimony of Dr. Bell re: pltf's work life expectancy. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 12/15/11. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEPHEN K. BIEBER and KAREN
BIEBER,
Plaintiffs
v.
DAVID J. NACE and EASTERN
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-0718
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2011, upon consideration of the
motion in limine (Doc. 38) to preclude the report and testimony of Darl V. Bell, M.D.
(“Dr. Bell”) concerning plaintiff Stephen Bieber’s (“Mr. Bieber”) work life
expectancy, filed by defendant Eastern Industries, Inc., wherein Eastern Industries
claims that Dr. Bell provides no medical or scientific basis for his opinion that Mr.
Bieber has a work life expectancy of only five years (id. ¶¶ 4, 9, 10), and asserts that
the opinion should be excluded as unsupported speculation,1 and it appearing that
the admissibility of expert testimony is a question of law for the court and expert
testimony must be both relevant and reliable, Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport
Fittings, Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d 630, 633 (M.D. Pa. 2009), and the court noting that its
1
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert witness
testimony and provides that an expert witness may testify to specialized knowledge,
“in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient
facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,
and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of
the case.” FED . R. EVID . 702.
inquiry must focus on the principles and methodology utilized by the expert, not
the conclusions he or she generates, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 744
(3d Cir. 1994), and the court finding that “Rule 702 embraces a ‘liberal policy of
admissibility,’ pursuant to which it is preferable to admit any evidence that may
assist the trier of fact,” Arlington Indus., Inc., 658 F. Supp. 2d at 633-34 (citing
Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 243 (3d Cir. 2008)); Kannankeril v. Terminix
Int’l, Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 806 (3d Cir. 1997), but that subjective belief, and
unsupported speculation do not satisfy the standard for admissibility of expert
opinions, Kannankeril, 128 F.3d at 807, and the court concluding that Dr. Bell’s
testimony is relevant, and reliable and not based upon subjective beliefs or
unsupported speculation,2 see FED . R. EVID . 702, it is hereby ORDERED that
2
Dr. Bell is Mr. Bieber’s internist. (Doc. 50, Ex. A). Dr. Bell manages Mr.
Bieber’s care and has reviewed Mr. Bieber’s medical records from the accident.
(Id.) He explains that as a result of the accident of June 2008, Mr. Bieber’s ability to
work has been affected due to back pain, infections of the skin graft at the site of
Mr. Bieber’s leg amputation, pain and arthritis. (Id. at 1-2). From this history, Dr.
Bell opines that Mr. Bieber has a work life expectancy of five years. (Id. at 2).
The court finds no basis to conclude that Dr. Bell’s testimony concerning Mr.
Bieber’s work life expectancy falls short of the standard set forth in Rule 702.
Contrary to Eastern Industries’ assertion that Dr. Bell provides no medical basis for
his opinion on Mr. Bieber’s work life expectancy, Dr. Bell explains in his report that
his conclusion “comes from an understanding of what [Mr. Bieber] goes through to
manage his work day and the continuation and likely exacerbation of the problems
affecting him to date, i.e. graft breakdowns, infection, pain, increasing arthritis,
etc.” (Id.); see also Lauria v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No., 1997 WL 138906, at *4
(E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 1997) (noting that the doctor’s opinions on plaintiff’s prognosis,
job restrictions and future medical treatment were based on his treatment of the
patient and finding that “[t]hese are factors which a medical professional would
consider necessary to treat his patient”). Dr. Bell’s opinion on Mr. Bieber’s work
life expectancy is admissible. The credibility of that opinion is for the jury. See
Kannankeril, 128 F.3d at 806. Eastern Industries may use cross-examination and
Eastern Industries’ motion in limine (Doc. 38) to preclude the report and testimony
of Dr. Bell concerning plaintiff’s work life expectancy is DENIED.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
closing argument to expose the alleged weaknesses in Dr. Bell’s opinion. See
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (stating that shaky, but admissible, expert testimony may
be tested at trial through “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary
evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof”).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?