Lo v. United States of America et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 71 Motion to Exclude and Strike Expert Opinions of Sanford Wright, M.D. The Court STRIKES Dr. Wright's supplemental report in its entirety. The Court EXCLUDES the following o pinions: 1. Dr. Wright's opinions regarding the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiffs medical bills; 2. Dr. Wright's opinions regarding Plaintiff's alleged hip injury and mental health condition; 3. Dr. Wright 9;s opinions regarding Plaintiff's alleged Complex Regional Pain Syndrome; and 4. Dr. Wright's opinions regarding the causation between Plaintiff's alleged hip injury, mental health condition, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR)

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 9

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11
12
13
14

KA WAI JIMMY LO,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:17-cv-01202- RAJ

v.

ORDER

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s (“the Government”) motion to

18

strike and exclude expert opinions of Sanford Wright, M.D. Dkt. # 71. Plaintiff opposes

19

the motion. Dkt. # 81. Having reviewed the briefing, record, and relevant law, the Court

20

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion.

21

II. BACKGROUND

22

This case arises out of a November 23, 2012, motor vehicle collision involving

23

Plaintiff Ka Wai Jimmy Lo (“Plaintiff”) and a United States Postal Service (“USPS”)

24

employee. Dkt. # 71 at 2. On June 16, 2021, the deadline for disclosing expert witness

25

disclosure and reports, Plaintiff disclosed an expert report by Dr. Sanford Wright, M.D.

26

Dkt. # 71 at 2 (citing Dkt. # 51). In his report, Dr. Wright diagnosed Plaintiff with the

27

following nine conditions related to the collision:

28

ORDER – 1

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

PTSD, anxiety/depression and major depressive order;
Brachial plexopathy;
Cervical radiculopathy;
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (“CRPS”);
L3-4 disc herniation;
Cervical strain;
Minor thoracic strain;
Lumbar strain; and
Labial tear, right hip.

Dkt. # 72-1 at 20.
A month later, Plaintiff produced a rebuttal report from Dr. Wright. Id. The

10

Government deposed Dr. Wright on August 3, 2021 and August 12, 2021. Id. On

11

August 14, 2021, Plaintiff produced a supplemental report from Dr. Wright. Id. Two

12

days later, the Government deposed Dr. Wright for a third time. Id.

13

The Government now moves to strike Dr. Wright’s supplemental report regarding

14

the reasonableness and necessity of medical bills and to exclude Dr. Wright’s opinions

15

regarding Plaintiff’s medical expenses. Dkt. # 71 at 2. The Government also seeks to

16

exclude Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s hip surgery, mental health treatment,

17

CRPS, brachial plexopathy, and the causal connection between Plaintiff’s injuries and the

18

collision. Id. at 7-13.

19
20
21

III. LEGAL STANDARDS
A. Striking Supplemental Expert Opinions
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), an expert witness must provide a

22

report containing, inter alia, “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will

23

express and the basis and reasons for them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). Under

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), a party must timely supplement a disclosure “if

25

the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or

26

incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made

27
28

ORDER – 2

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 3 of 9

1

known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

26(e)(1).

3

Supplemental expert reports that merely attempt “to deepen and strengthen the

4

expert’s prior reports” do not fall within the scope of supplemental disclosures under

5

Rule 26(e). Lindner v. Meadow Gold Dairies, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 625, 639 (D. Haw. 2008)

6

(internal citation omitted). Indeed, Rule 26(e) does not provide a second chance to raise

7

issues that should have been included in an expert’s initial report. Id. Rather, Rule

8

26(e)’s supplementation “means correcting inaccuracies, or filling the interstices of an

9

incomplete report based on information that was not available at the time of the initial

10

disclosure.” Id. (citing Keener v. United States, 181 F.R.D. 639, 640 (D. Mont. 1998)).

11

B. Legal Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony

12

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, “a witness who is qualified as an expert by

13
14
15
16
17
18

knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify” if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.

19

The Court “must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted

20

is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579,

21

589 (1993). An expert “is permitted wide latitude to offer opinions” based “on an

22

assumption that the expert’s opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and

23

experience of his discipline.” Id. at 592. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of

24

contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and

25

appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Id. at 596.

26

The Court notes that in a bench trial such as this, in which “the district court sits as

27

the finder of fact, there is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the

28

ORDER – 3

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 4 of 9

1

gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself.” United States v. Flores, 901 F.3d 1150,

2

1165 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted). This is because “Daubert is meant to

3

protect juries from being swayed by dubious scientific testimony.” Id. When the district

4

court is the factfinder, “the court does not err in admitting the evidence subject to the

5

ability later to exclude it or disregard it if it turns out not to meet the standard of

6

reliability established by Rule 702.” Id.
IV. DISCUSSION

7
8
9

In the pending motion, the Government seeks to exclude Dr. Wright’s
supplemental report and to strike Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding several of Plaintiff’s

10

injuries and the causal connection between the injuries and the collision. The Court will

11

address the report and opinions in turn.

12

A.

13

The Government alleges that Dr. Wright’s supplemental report was an effort “to

14

address the inadequacies [Dr. Wright] perceived in his report based upon the deposition

15

questioning.” Dkt. # 71 at 4. The Court agrees. Dr. Wright states that his supplemental

16

report is a “response to questions during [his] deposition” and what he claims are

17

“additionally provided records.” Dkt. # 72-3 at 2. Except for one medical bill, Dr.

18

Wright’s supplemental report does not provide information that was not available at the

19

time his expert report was disclosed. Indeed, Plaintiff does not dispute that the

20

supplemental report addresses the reasonability and necessity of all medical bills, all but

21

one of which were available to the parties before the first expert report was timely filed.

22

Dr. Wright’s Supplemental Report

The rule for supplementation does not “give license to sandbag one’s opponent

23

with claims and issues which should have been included in the expert witness’ report.”

24

249 F.R.D. at 639. “Nor does Rule 26(e) create a loophole through which a party who

25

submits partial expert witness disclosures, or who wishes to revise her disclosures in light

26

of her opponent’s challenges to the analysis and conclusions therein, can add to them to

27

her advantage after the court’s deadline for doing so has passed.” Luke v. Fam. Care &

28

ORDER – 4

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 5 of 9

1

Urgent Med. Clinics, 323 F. App’x 496, 500 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s statement that

2

Dr. Wright “chose to provide a supplemental report merely in an effort to provide a better

3

answer to the defense, in response to counsel’s repetitive inquiries” does not reflect the

4

purpose or fall within the scope of supplementation permitted under, Rule 26.

5
6

The Court therefore finds that Dr. Wright’s supplemental report is improper, and
hereby STRIKES it.

7

B.

8

The Government next moves to exclude Dr. Wright’s opinion regarding the

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dr. Wright’s Opinions Regarding Plaintiff’s Medical Bills

reasonableness and necessity of medical bills in his properly filed expert report. Dkt.
# 81 at 5. Dr. Wright states the following:
Based upon my background, training, education, and experience, and my
familiarity with reasonable charges for medical, chiropractic, imaging, and
acupuncture charges, it is my opinion on a more probable than not basis that these
bills and treatment were reasonable and necessary for the injuries Client sustained
in this collision.
Dkt. # 72-1 at 32.
When asked, during his August 12, 2021 deposition, whether he had reviewed any
of the medical bills at issue, Dr. Wright responded that he had not. Dkt. # 72-4 at 54:1718. He confirmed that he did not know how much any of Plaintiff’s providers charged
Plaintiff. Id. at 55:13-18. When asked about the different rates charged to uninsured
patients and those to insured patients, Dr. Wright explained “I just felt that the
organizations and individuals involved were very credible. I never looked at the
individual billings.” Id. at 55:19-56:1. The Court finds that Dr. Wright’s testimony on
the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s medical bills is unfounded based on the
fact that he did not look at the medical bills and was unaware of what Plaintiff was
charged by his medical providers before Dr. Wright completed his expert report. Dr.
Wright’s testimony on this matter is not based on “sufficient facts or data” as required by
ORDER – 5

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 6 of 9

1

Rule 702, and the Court finds “that there is simply too great an analytical gap between

2

the data and the opinion proffered.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997).

3

Dr. Wright’s opinions as to the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s medical bills

4

are hereby excluded.

5

C.

Dr. Wright’s Opinions on Hip Injury and Mental Health Treatment

6

The Government argues that “Dr. Wright’s opinions and testimony regarding

7

Plaintiff’s hip surgery and mental health treatment should be excluded because these

8

medical issues are outside his admitted scope of expertise.” Dkt. # 71 at 7. The Court

9

agrees. As the Government notes, Dr. Wright is a retired neurosurgeon with expertise in

10

head and spine injuries. Id. When asked about Plaintiff’s hip injury, specifically, his

11

cam impingement and labral tear, Dr. Wright confirmed that he has no expertise in hip-

12

related injuries. See Dkt. # 72-4 at 45:4-10; 46:18-47:2 (stating “[w]ell, it would involve

13

the hip joint. That is not my area of expertise.”) Given that, the Court excludes his

14

opinions with respect to Plaintiff’s hip injury and treatment as unreliable due to his lack

15

of expertise in the matter.

16

For the same reasons, the Court excludes Dr. Wright’s testimony and opinions on

17

Plaintiff’s mental health conditions. As Dr. Wright acknowledged, he has not had any

18

specialized training or expertise in mental health conditions. Dkt. # 72-4 at 57:9-19. He

19

conceded that his diagnosis of Plaintiff’s mental health condition was not based on his

20

own testing or application of any scientific methodology, but rather on his adoption of

21

“the remarks of providers in the medical records.” Id. at 58:2-19. Dr. Wright does not

22

have the scientific or specialized knowledge in the field of mental health to help a trier of

23

fact to understand the evidence, nor is his testimony on these issues “the product of

24

reliable principles and methods.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Court therefore excludes these

25

opinions.

26

D.

27

The Government argues that Dr. Wright’s diagnosis regarding Plaintiff’s alleged

28

ORDER – 6

Dr. Wright’s Opinions on CRPS and Brachial Plexopathy

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 7 of 9

1

CRPS and brachial plexopathy should be excluded “because his methodology is

2

unreliable and unhelpful to the trier of fact.” Dkt. # 85 at 6. Plaintiff does not respond to

3

the Government’s argument regarding CRPS. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the

4

argument may be considered by the Court as an admission that the motion has merit,

5

pursuant to Local Rule 7(b)(2). The Court thus GRANTS the Government’s motion to

6

exclude Dr. Wright’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s alleged CRPS.

7

The Court is not so inclined, however, regarding Dr. Wright’s opinion on

8

Plaintiff’s alleged brachial plexopathy. When questioned as to how he arrived at his

9

diagnosis of brachial plexopathy, Dr. Wright explained that he had reviewed the EMG

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

and concluded that it was consistent with such a diagnosis:
The EMG report was positive for involvement of the suprascapular nerve, the
median nerve, the radial nerve, and the ulnar nerve. It was consistent with a C5-6,
7, 8, I think, nerve root abnormality. By understanding what’s—the way this is
done, that would be consistent with a brachial plexitis, brachial plexopathy.
Dkt. 72-4 at 32:2-16. He indicated that “the principal evidence for brachial plexopathy is
the reinnervation pattern seen on the EMG.” Id. at 11:7-13. Dr. Wright also noted that
the EMG was evaluated by a neurologist “who has an extensive academic and clinical
record,” who reached the same conclusion. Id. at 17-20.
The Court finds that Dr. Wright’s expert opinion on Plaintiff’s alleged brachial
plexopathy is admissible. In determining whether an expert’s testimony is admissible, a
court “must determine whether the expert’s testimony reflects (1) scientific knowledge,
and (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a material fact at issue.”
Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226, 1227–28 (9th Cir. 1998). Dr. Wright’s
testimony on the issue reflects his medical expertise and is helpful to a trier of fact to
understand the evidence. Whether it is well-supported goes to the weight of his
testimony not its admissibility. The Court therefore DENIES the Government’s motion
to exclude Dr. Wright’s testimony on Plaintiff’s alleged brachial plexopathy.
ORDER – 7

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 8 of 9

1

E.

Dr. Wright’s Opinions on Causation

2

The Government asserts that Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding the causal

3

connection between Plaintiff’s injuries and the collision should be excluded because “Dr.

4

Wright failed to base his opinions that Plaintiff’s medical conditions resulted from the

5

collision on a factual, scientific, medical, or technical foundation or methodology.” Dkt.

6

# 71 at 11. Plaintiff argues that Dr. Wright’s causation opinions are based on “his review

7

of the medical records and chronology, as well as the interview with Mr. Lo and his

8

family.” Dkt. # 81 at 9. Plaintiff points to Dr. Wright’s testimony that “it would be the

9

circumstances of the injury, the car was totaled, and the fact that [Plaintiff] who is

10
11

experiencing the pain, understands that that pain rose from the accident.” Id.
As the Court has already determined, Dr. Wright does not have the requisite

12

expertise or specialization to opine about Plaintiff’s alleged hip injury, mental health

13

conditions, or CRPS. Consequently, Dr. Wright does not have a foundation from which

14

to determine whether a causal connection exists between these alleged injuries and the

15

motor vehicle collision. Thus, his testimony on causation between these particular

16

injuries and the collision is inadmissible.

17

However, with respect to the causal link between Plaintiff’s other injuries and the

18

collision, his testimony is admissible. When asked whether he had applied any particular

19

model or framework of causation in his determination of causation, Dr. Wright confirmed

20

that he had. Dkt. # 82-2 at 246:20-247:10. He explained that he applied the three-step

21

causation analysis developed by causation expert Michael Freeman. Id. The

22

Government here does not challenge the soundness of the methodology, but rather

23

questions how vigorously Dr. Wright applied it here. The Court, sitting as a factfinder in

24

this case, admits Dr. Wright’s testimony on causation between Plaintiff’s alleged injuries

25

that have not been excluded and the collision, “subject to the ability later to exclude it or

26

disregard it if it turns out not to meet the standard of reliability established by Rule 702.”

27

Flores, 901 F.3d at 1165.

28

ORDER – 8

Case 2:17-cv-01202-RAJ Document 91 Filed 11/03/21 Page 9 of 9

V.

1
2

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part

3

Defendant’s motion to exclude. Dkt. # 71. The Court STRIKES Dr. Wright’s

4

supplemental report in its entirety. The Court EXCLUDES the following opinions:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

1. Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding the reasonableness and necessity of
Plaintiff’s medical bills;
2. Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s alleged hip injury and mental
health condition;
3. Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s alleged Complex Regional Pain
Syndrome; and
4. Dr. Wright’s opinions regarding the causation between Plaintiff’s alleged
hip injury, mental health condition, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2021.

A

16
17

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 9