Hall v. Summit Fire District et al, No. 3:2015cv08189 - Document 100 (D. Ariz. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER denying 87 Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. John Beck. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 3/30/18. (DXD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hall v. Summit Fire District et al 1 Doc. 100 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Garrett D. Hall, No. CV-15-08189-PCT-JJT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Summit Fire District, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 At issue is Plaintiff Garett D. Hall’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony 17 of Dr. John Beck (Doc. 87, Mot.), to which Defendants Summit Fire District, Summit 18 Fire District Board, Howard Nott, Jim Doskocil, Rick Parker, Bill Stoddard, and Don 19 Howard filed a Response (Doc. 96, Resp.), and Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 97, Reply). 20 The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and finds this matter appropriate for decision 21 without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for the 22 reasons set forth below. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence tasks the trial court with ensuring that 25 any expert testimony provided is relevant and reliable. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 26 Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). “Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact 27 more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and the fact is of 28 consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. The trial court must first Dockets.Justia.com 1 assess whether the testimony is valid and whether the expert’s reasoning or methodology 2 can properly be applied to the facts in issue. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93. Factors to 3 consider in this assessment include: whether the methodology can be tested; whether the 4 methodology has been subjected to peer review; whether the methodology has a known 5 or potential rate of error; and whether the methodology has been generally accepted 6 within the relevant professional community. Id. at 593-94. “The inquiry envisioned by 7 Rule 702” is “a flexible one.” Id. at 594. “The focus . . . must be solely on principles and 8 methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” Id. 9 The Daubert analysis is also applicable to testimony concerning non-scientific 10 areas of specialized knowledge. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 11 (1999). A qualified expert may testify in the form of opinion if the offered experiential 12 knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand evidence or determine a fact in issue, 13 as long as the testimony is based on sufficient data, is the product of reliable principles, 14 and the expert has reliably applied the principles to the facts of the case. See Fed. R. 15 Evid. 702; Daubert, 509 U.S. at 579. The advisory committee notes on the 2000 16 amendments to Rule 702 explain that Rule 702 (as amended in response to Daubert) “is 17 not intended to provide an excuse for an automatic challenge to the testimony of every 18 expert.” See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of 19 contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and 20 appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595 21 (citation omitted). 22 II. ANALYSIS 23 Plaintiff moves to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert witness, Dr. John 24 Beck, arguing that Dr. Beck’s testimony opinions are “unreliable” because they have no 25 basis in fact or data and Dr. Beck’s testimony will not assist the trier of fact because he is 26 not a qualified expert on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). (Mot. at 1-2.) 27 28 -2- 1 A. 2 Dr. Beck’s Qualifications to Offer Expert Testimony on PTSD and Reasonable Accommodations 3 Plaintiff argues that Dr. Beck is not qualified to provide expert testimony 4 regarding reasonable accommodation because he lacks relevant professional experience. 5 (See Mot. at 13-14.) Courts evaluating admissibility of “technical” or “specialized” 6 knowledge determine first, whether the technical or specialized knowledge will assist the 7 trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue; and second, whether 8 or not the proposed witness has the requisite qualifications in his area of expertise. United 9 States v. Plunk, 153 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds 10 recognized by United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 11 702 contemplates a broad conception of expert qualifications, approving qualification by 12 “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Thomas v. Newton Int’l Enters., 13 42 F.3d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1994). 14 This case involves issues regarding Hall’s PTSD, whether it precludes his ability 15 to work, reasonable accommodations available to him, and other related issues. (See 16 Doc. 23, 2d Am. Compl.) Plaintiff confuses “relevance” with “qualification” under the 17 Daubert inquiry. (See Mot. at 13.) Defendants properly contend that Dr. Beck’s expert 18 testimony will help explain to the jury the nature of Hall’s PTSD condition, its impact on 19 Hall’s work as a firefighter, his treatment, and whether any reasonable accommodation is 20 available to him. (Resp. at 6-7.) The Court agrees that Dr. Beck’s offered opinions are 21 relevant because they present specialized knowledge regarding Hall’s claims. See 22 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591. 23 With regard to his qualifications, Dr. Beck is a board certified psychologist with 24 over 30 years of experience. (Resp. Ex. 2, Beck Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) at 4-5.) He has 25 treated hundreds of PTSD patients, including evaluations of police officers and veterans. 26 (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 56:22-57:9, 59:5-16.) Dr. Beck also has 16 years of experience 27 as a human resources director, providing reasonable accommodation recommendations 28 and receiving feedback from employees. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 150:8-151:13, 169:19- -3- 1 170:1.) Dr. Beck’s education, knowledge, and experience are well established by the 2 record and demonstrate his qualifications to provide expert testimony regarding the 3 viability of reasonable accommodations and its effect on Hall and other employees. 4 Plaintiff argues that Dr. Beck’s primary specialty in mild traumatic brain injury, 5 his insufficient work experience with public safety officials with PTSD, and his 6 unfamiliarity with experts in the field of PTSD demonstrate a lack of qualification to 7 testify in this matter. (Mot. at 14-15.) However, Dr. Beck has performed psychiatric 8 fitness-for-duty evaluations of police officers and evaluated veterans for PTSD. (Resp. 9 Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 39:18-42:13, 174:7-11.) Also, his secondary area of expertise in PTSD 10 has allowed him to provide expert testimony for the past five years for PTSD-related 11 issues. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 16:14-17:1.) Therefore, Dr. Beck has the qualifications to 12 provide testimony regarding reasonable accommodations and PTSD. 13 B. 14 Plaintiff next argues Dr. Beck fails to demonstrate proper methodology and data to 15 support his conclusions about the availability of reasonable accommodations, thus failing 16 the reliability prong of Daubert. (Mot. at 6, 11.) Experts of all kinds may draw 17 conclusions from “general truths derived from . . . specialized experience.” Kumho Tire, 18 526 U.S. at 148. As a result, the original Daubert factors, at times, may not be applicable 19 to testimony that relies on knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than 20 methodology or theory. Hankey, 203 F.3d at 1169. Where an expert fails to provide more 21 than qualifications, conclusions, and assurances of reliability to support his testimony, the 22 testimony fails to be sufficiently based on facts and data. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow 23 Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1995). Sufficiency of the Facts and Data Dr. Beck Relied On 24 Here, Dr. Beck personally conducted a clinical interview of Hall, administered a 25 variety of psychological and personality tests, and completed a forensic psychological 26 examination. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 163:21-25.) Dr. Beck also reviewed Hall’s 27 psychiatric and therapy records, the results of a prior independent medical examination, 28 and the report completed by Hall’s own expert witness. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 164:1- -4- 1 165:14.) Dr. Beck thus based a portion of his opinions regarding Hall’s PTSD condition 2 on information derived from these psychological tests and records. 3 Regarding his opinions of Hall’s PTSD and the availability of reasonable 4 accommodation, Dr. Beck cited his 16 years of experience as a human resources director, 5 making decisions about reasonable accommodations and hardships for a large hospital 6 system. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 169:19-23.) He also referenced his consultations with 7 police departments, banks, and other industry leaders in the implementation of the 8 Americans with Disabilities Act. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 169:22-170:1.) Dr. Beck also 9 based his opinions about schedule modifications and public safety work on feedback he 10 had previously received from police officers on light duty and their colleagues. (Resp. Ex. 11 1, Beck Dep. 150:8-151:13.) Furthermore, Dr. Beck hinged his opinions regarding stimuli 12 that may trigger Hall’s PTSD on his experience with public safety officials with PTSD and 13 his psychological evaluation of Hall. (Resp. Ex. 1, Beck Dep. 149:8-12, 170:2-9.) 14 Plaintiff also contends that Dr. Beck based his conclusions on “logic,” without 15 providing data to support them, and assumptions, not facts about Pinewood Fire 16 Department, Hall’s current employer. (Mot. at 11.) Courts act as a gatekeeper under 17 Daubert, but do not supplant the adversary system or role of the jury. Daubert, 509 U.S. 18 at 596. The district court does not evaluate the persuasiveness of the offered evidence, but 19 leaves it to “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful 20 instruction on burden of proof” to attack admissible evidence. Id. Dr. Beck cited his 21 extensive experience as a human resources director and his review of Hall’s 22 psychological evaluations as support for his opinions. The Court thus finds Dr. Beck has 23 sufficiently relied on proper data, methods, and experience to formulate his opinions and 24 leaves it to the Plaintiff to dispute the strength of his credentials or weight of his opinion 25 through cross-examination. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 The Court finds that Dr. Beck’s testimony as to Hall’s PTSD condition and the 28 availability of reasonable accommodation is relevant to Hall’s legal claims; that Dr. Beck -5- 1 is qualified to offer his testimony; and that his testimony is reliable based on his 2 referenced experience and his review of Hall’s psychological evaluations. 3 4 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. John Beck (Doc. 87). Dated this 30th day of March, 2018. 6 7 8 Honorable John J. Tuchi United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
