Owens v. Walmart Corporation et al
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant both of Defendant's Motions in Limine. In summary, Plaintiffs physician(s) will not be permitted to opine about the cause of Plaintiffs injuries, except to the extent they are expressed unambiguously in Plaintiffs treatment records. Furthermore, Plaintiff will not be permitted to introduce lay opinion testimony regarding: her medical diagnoses, her medical prognoses, or the causation of her injuries. Aseparate Order follows.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 10/12/12. (jfg)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DIONNE OWENS
Plaintiff
v.
3:10·CV-862
(JUDGE MARIANI)
WAL·MART STORES EAST, LP
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Introduction
Defendant filed two Motions in Limine with supporting briefs on September 25, 2012.
(Docs. 50, 52). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to limit
Plaintiffs physician testimony to her treating records only. Plaintiffs physician(s) will not be
permitted to opine about the cause of Plaintiffs injuries, except to the extent they are
expressed unambiguously in Plaintiffs treatment records. Furthermore, Plaintiff will not be
permitted to introduce lay opinion testimony regarding: her medical diagnoses, her medical
prognoses, or the causation of her injuries.
At the outset, the Court notes that each party has failed to comply with the Local
Rules. Defendant did not submit Certificates of Concurrence or Non-Concurrence with its
Motions in Limine, as required by Local Rule 7.1. In turn, Plaintiff has not responded to
either of Defendant's Motions in Limine as required by Local Rule 7.6, which states that any
party opposing a motion must "file a brief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after
I
(
service of the movant's brief." Defendant's motions were filed on September 25,2012, were
accompanied by a Certificate of Service, and more than fourteen days have passed without
a response from Plaintiff. "Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be deemed not
to oppose such motion." Id.
8ecause each side has failed to follow the Local Rules, the Court will address the
merits of Defendant's motions and not deem them as unopposed by Plaintiff.
Defendant's First Motion in Limine (Doc. 50)
According to the final case management order in this case pertaining to Plaintiff
(Doc. 38), discovery was scheduled to close on November 1, 2011. Though Plaintiffs
attorney indicated that he "inten[ded] to bring in [his] medical witnesses to testify live in this
matter/' (Letter dated February 14, 2012, Doc. 50, Ex. A), Defendant argues that Plaintiff
never designated any experts or supplied Defendant with any expert reports as required by
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(8). Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence to dispute
Defendant's contention.
As such, to the extent that Plaintiff calls any medical witnesses at trial, those
witnesses will be "limited to facts gained in their treatment of [Owens]." Allen v. Parkland
Sch. Dist., 230 F. App'x 189, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. 68.94 Acres of
Land, 918 F.2d 389, 396 (3d Cir. 1990)). Plaintiffs physician(s) will not be permitted to
opine about the cause of Plaintiffs injuries, except to the extent they are expressed
unambiguously in Plaintiffs treatment records. Therefore, any medical doctors whom
2
Plaintiff may call will nQt be permitted to' "putO fQrward expert causatiQn testimQny based Qn
facts that went beyQnd [their] treatment Qf [Owens]." Id.
Defendant's SecQnd MQtiQn in Limine (DQc. 52)
Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries frQm her slip-and-fall at Wal-Mart in April 2008
and seeks to' shQW that Defendant's negligence was the prQximate cause Qf her injuries.
It gQes withQut citatiQn that as a part Qf a tQrt actiQn the plaintiff must prove
that the injury claimed to' have been sustained and fQr which recQvery is
SQught was caused by the tQrtiQUS act Qr fQrce Qf the tQrtfeasQr. With regard
to' claims Qf physical injury Qr impairment, expert medical testimQny is
necessary to' establish the causal nexus Qf the injury to' the tQrtiQUS cQnduct in
thQse cases where the cQnnectiQn is nQt QbviQus. This is due to' the
cQmplicated nature Qf the medical field which is beyQnd the knQwledge Qf the
average juror.
KQvalev v. SQwell, 839 A.2d 359,368 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
In KQvalev, the plaintiff (KQvalev) and defendant (SQwell) had been invQlved in an
autQmQbile accident from which KQvalev allegedly suffered "severe traumatic persQnal
injuries to' his spine in [the] fQrm of multiple herniatiQns Qf the vertebral disks, injury to' his
nerves and nervQUS system." Id. at 361. At trial, hQwever, KQvalev, appearing pro se, was
nQt permitted to' call himself as an expert medical witness because, thQugh a medical
dQctQr, he was nQt trained in "QrthQpedics, radiQIQgy, neurQlogy, Qr any medical subspecialty
that WQuid have been pertinent" to' his case. Id. at 364. As such, Qnly his treating physician
CQuid testify as an expert. UnfQrtunately, his treating physician did nQt appear as scheduled
to' testify. Because Qf the witness's nQn-appearance, KQvalev was unable to' establish
3
proximate cause, and the trial court entered a compulsory nonsuit which the Superior Court
affirmed. Id. at 368. In affirming, the Superior Court stated:
In this case, the injuries alleged by Kovalev involved trauma to his spine,
vertebral disks and nervous system. By their nature, such internal injuries
would not be readily observable by a jury. More importantly, the connection
between Sowell's arguably tortious conduct and Kovalev's claimed injuries
would have been far from obvious. This is clearly a case where expert
medical testimony was necessary to establish the requisite causal nexus.
Id.
The Complaint states that on April 28, 2008, Plaintiff slipped and fell at Defendant's
Wal-Mart in Mt. Pocono, Pennsylvania, thereby suffering a"non-displaced fracture of the
distal fibula; fractures of metatarsal bones in left foot; cervical sprain and strain; lumbar
sprain and strain; wrist pain, damage to her nerves and nervous system, as well as various
other ills and injuries." (Doc. 1, mr 8, 17). According to Plaintiffs answers to Defendant's
interrogatories, "Plaintiff had a prior slip and fall accident occurring in September of 2006 in
which she sustained injury to her back." (Doc. 35, Ex. A, 1f 12(A)). Medical records also
show that following her second slip-and-fall in 2008, Plaintiff was involved in acar accident
on October 8, 2009. (Doc. 35, Ex. C). When she sought medical treatment on October 23,
2009, she described her pain as "Lower back / Bad." (ld.). She also checked off various
symptoms on a prepared list, including lower back pain, back pain, back stiffness, leg pain,
arms/shoulder pain, numb hands/fingers, neck pain, and neck stiffness. (ld.). Plaintiff
specified that her leg pain extended all the way through her left leg, and in the medical
4
history of her general pain questionnaire, she indicated that she had injured her left leg in
the April 2008 slip-and-fall accident. (Id.).
Based on Plaintiffs history of multiple injuries to her back and her lower extremities,
the Court concludes that expert medical testimony is necessary at trial to establish
causation between her April 2008 slip-and-fall and her allegedly resulting injuries. "By their
nature, such internal injuries would not be readily observable by ajury. More importantly,
the connection between [Wal-Mart's] arguably tortious conduct and [Owens's] claimed
injuries would have been far from obvious," thereby neceSSitating the submission of expert
evidence. See Kovalev, 839 A.2d at 368.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant both of Defendant's Motions in
Limine. In summary, Plaintiffs physician(s) will not be permitted to opine about the cause of
Plaintiffs injuries, except to the extent they are expressed unambiguously in Plaintiffs
treatment records. Furthermore, Plaintiff will not be permitted to introduce lay opinion
testimony regarding: her medical diagnoses, her medical prognoses, or the causation of her
injuries. Aseparate Order follows.
obert D. Mariani
United States District Judge
5
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?