Options Home Health of North Florida, Inc. et al v. Nurses Registy and Home Health Corporation et al, No. 5:2011cv00166 - Document 116 (E.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plas' 93 Motion in Limine to exclude Craig Carter, an attorney and accountant, from testifying as an expert witness at trial is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on May 20, 2013. (AWD) cc: COR
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON OPTIONS HOME HEALTH OF NORTH FLORIDA, INC., BRIAN VIRGO, and JOSH GOODE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, v. NURSES REGISTRY AND HOME HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant. ** ** Action No. 5:11-cv-166-JMH MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ** ** ** This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion in limine [DE 93] to exclude Craig Carter, an attorney and accountant, from testifying as an expert witness at trial. Defendant Nurses Registry and Home Health Corporation has responded [DE Plaintiffs. 95] and a reply [DE 97]1 was filed by This matter is now ripe for review. Plaintiffs argue that Craig Carter, a fact witness who acted as counsel for Nurses Registry, should not be eligible to testify as an expert in this matter due to his 1 The Court notes that the only differences between the Memorandum in support of the Motion [DE 93-1] and the Reply [DE 97] filed in the record in this matter were the title and the date contained in the certificate of service. 1 failure to produce a report in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(2)(B). Defendant asserts that it was not clear that a report was necessary because Mr. Carter s role is similar to that of expert whose opinion is based on upon their involvement in the underlying facts of the case, thus he is not referenced a in retained or Fed. Civ. R. specially P. employed 26 expert (a)(2)(B). In as the alternative, Defendant argues that the failure to provide a report was understandable and Plaintiffs harmed by its absence in this instance. have not been This Court remains unpersuaded by Defendant s argument. First, Mr. Carter s Defendant believes. role is less ambiguous than Mr. Carter was retained as counsel to try to resuscitate the asset purchase transaction after the transfer of the Medicare license from Options to Nurses Registry was denied. [DE 95 at 1]. position Carter expert toward is that opinion Mr. concerning consummating the is the Nurses Registry s entitled efforts transaction firsthand knowledge of those events. to the provide parties based upon [DE 95 at 2]. an made his This is, Nurses Registry argues, similar to a treating physician who is entitled to provide opinions on causation and prognosis without providing a report under Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)(2). However, the basis for the treating physician s 2 exception is the obvious fact that doctors may need to determine the cause of an injury in order to treat it. Fielden v. CSX Transp., Inc., 482 F.3d 866 at 870 (6th Cir. 2007). In other words, developing an opinion on causation and prognosis is a part of the treating physician s role irrespective of any later request to offer an expert opinion that analysis was already completed during the physician s treatment. treating physician s original diagnosis However, where the purview of the opinion and exceeds treatment, the an scope expert of report the is required before those opinions may be provided as evidence. Fielden, 482 F.3d at 870-71. According to Defendant s disclosure, Mr. Carter is expected to testify about the reasonableness of Defendant s actions with respect License and medical provider that in to the the number transfer industry is an of the asset the transfer of value transfer from one health care provider to another. at 1]. Medicare of the to any [DE 74 Based on this Court s review of his deposition transcript, it appears that Mr. Carter was also asked to provide an opinion on the value of the home health agency as a Medicare certified agency and the value if a Medicare provider number is not part of that agency. 99]. Such opinions were not 3 part and [DE 97-1 at parcel of his original representation of the defendant. Thus, even assuming that the rationale for the treating physician s exception could apply to Mr. Carter, his expert opinions in this instance do not fit within its boundaries. His status as a retained expert is quite clear. Mr. Carter was specifically retained to provide expert testimony sometime in 2012 after litigation began and long after his role in the underlying matter had concluded. [DE 97-1 at documents 99]. and His opinion electronic was based communication on certain provided by Defendant [DE 74]. Such information was, presumably, not available to him during his involvement in the underlying matter. In short, Mr. Carter was specifically retained in this instance to expert testimony, the scope of which are outside of his initial involvement in the case and he, therefore, was required to provide a report as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(2). The failure to make this disclosure operates as an automatic Carter. bar to the expert testimony offered by Mr. Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., 325 F.3d 776, 782 (6th Cir. 2003); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Such exclusion is mandatory unless there is a reasonable explanation of why Rule 26 was not complied with or the mistake was harmless. 4 Bessemer v. Lake Erie R.R. v. Seaway Martine Transp., 596 F.3d 357, 370 (6th Cir. 2010)(internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate that Mr. Carter s failure to produce a harmless. Inc., report and timely, effective disclosure was Roberts ex rel. Johnson v. Galen of Virginia, 325 omitted). F.3d 776, 782 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations Notice of Carter s retention as an expert was provided at a deposition, and his status was only disclosed as a result of a direct question by opposing counsel. Carter was officially identified as an expert five (5) days later. [DE 74]. Plaintiffs did not have notice of Carter s opinions and the basis therefore while preparing for Mr. Carter s deposition and, even while preparing for trial, Plaintiffs still do not have the benefit of a complete expert report. Accordingly, ORDERED that exclude Craig and for Plaintiffs Carter, an the foregoing Motion in attorney reasons, limine and [DE 5 IS 93] to accountant, testifying as an expert witness at trial is GRANTED. This the 20th day of May, 2013. IT from
]]>
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.
