Sutter v. Carroll et al, No. 1:2011cv00083 - Document 83 (N.D. Ind. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Pla will be permitted to testify ONLY that he sought further medical treatment for his shoulder injury but NOT the nature, extent, or cost of that treatment and what he reported to those treating sources regarding his injury. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 8/20/2012. (lns)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION GARY SUTTER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. SOUTH WHITLEY POLICE OFFICERS, RICK CARROLL and JESSICA LEWIS, Defendants. Case No. 1:11-CV-83 OPINION AND ORDER At the Trial Management Conference held today in this matter, an issue arose as to the scope of Plaintiff Gary Sutter s testimony now that his undisclosed experts have been excluded and their notes and records, and the accompanying medical bills for their treatment, have been withdrawn. Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to testify that he received further medical treatment as a result of the shoulder injury sustained in the alleged use of excessive force and the nature and extent of such treatment. Defendants object to such testimony because, without an expert linking the treatment to the injury Sutter sustained during the disputed arrest, it would leave the jury to speculate as to causation. The fact that Sutter received further medical treatment is probative because it goes to his credibility, corroborating his claim of pain. And, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of this evidence is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See FED. R. EVID. 403. At the same time, as a lay witness, Sutter is not permitted to opine that the arrest proximately caused his physical health problems or offer a medical diagnosis of his alleged injury. 1 See United States v. Cravens, 275 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2001) ( Although a lay person may readily observe a [health] problem, the causation of a mental disease or defect is a more technical medical determination such that a court would find expert testimony particularly useful to its ultimate decision. (emphasis in original)); Christmas v. City of Chicago, 691 F. Supp. 2d 811, 821 (N.D. Ill. 2010). As such, Sutter will be permitted to testify only that he sought further medical treatment for his shoulder injury but not the nature, extent, or cost of that treatment and what he reported to those treating sources regarding his injury. SO ORDERED. Enter for this 20th day of August, 2012. S/Roger B. Cosbey Roger B. Cosbey, United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
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.
