Anderson v. Logiflex, Inc. et al, No. 2:2016cv16679 - Document 54 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 47 Motion in Limine to partially exclude the expert report and testimony of Dr. Everett G. Robert. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 5/15/2018. (clc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Anderson v. Logiflex, Inc. et al Doc. 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KELLY ANDERSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-16679 LOGIFLEX, INC., ET AL. SECTION “R” (1) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is plaintiff’s m otion in lim ine to partially exclude the expert report and testim ony of Dr. Everett G. Robert. 1 For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of a m otor vehicle accident in St. Tamm any Parish, Louisiana on Decem ber 15, 20 15. 2 According to the com plaint, Plaintiff Kelly Anderson was driving in the right lane of the I-12 highway when her car was struck by a truck driven by Defendant Gabriel Gutierrez. 3 Plaintiff asserts that Gutierrez is at fault for the collision because he entered the right lane without yielding to the vehicles already traveling in that lane. 4 Plaintiff allegedly suffered serious bodily injuries as a result of the accident. 5 1 2 3 4 5 R. Doc. 47. R. Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 9. Id. at 3 ¶¶ 9-11. Id. at 3 ¶¶ 11-12. Id. at 4 ¶ 13. Dockets.Justia.com On November 29, 20 16, plaintiff filed suit against defendants Gutierrez, Logiflex, Inc., and Am erican Inter-Fidelity Exchange (AIFE). 6 The com plaint asserts that Gutierrez was acting within the course and scope of his em ploym ent with Logiflex at the tim e of the accident. 7 AIFE is the alleged insurer of Gutierrez and Logiflex. 8 This m atter is set for a jury trial to begin on J une 11, 20 18. 9 Plaintiff now m oves to partially exclude the independent medical exam report and testim ony of defendants’ medical expert, Dr. Everett G. Robert. 10 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Federal Rule of Evidence 70 2 provides that a witness “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” m ay provide opinion testim ony when “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determ ine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 70 2. To be adm issible, Rule 70 2 requires that (1) the testim ony be based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the 6 7 8 9 10 Id. at 1. Id. at 4 ¶ 14. Id. at 2 ¶ 5. R. Doc. 28 at 3. R. Doc. 47. 2 testim ony be the product of reliable principles and m ethods, and (3) the witness apply the principles and m ethods reliably to the facts of the case. Id. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm aceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Rule 70 2 requires the district court to act as a gatekeeper to ensure that “any and all scientific testim ony or evidence adm itted is not only relevant, but reliable.” 50 9 U.S. 579, 589 (1993); see also Kum ho Tire Co. v. Carm ichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-48 (1999) (clarifying that the Daubert gatekeeping obligation applies to all form s of expert testimony). The Court’s gatekeeping function involves a two-part inquiry. First, the Court m ust determ ine whether the expert testim ony is reliable. The party offering the testim ony has the burden to establish reliability by a preponderance of the evidence. See Moore v. Ashland Chem . Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 1998). The Court m ust assess whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert’s testim ony is valid. See Daubert, 50 9 U.S. at 590 . The aim is to exclude expert testim ony based m erely on subjective belief or unsupported speculation. See id. The Court’s inquiry into the reliability of expert testim ony is flexible and necessarily fact-specific. See Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck Int’l, Inc., 20 0 F.3d 358, 372 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ). Second, the Court m ust determ ine whether the expert’s reasoning or m ethodology “fits” the facts of the case and whether it will assist the trier of 3 fact to understand the evidence. See Daubert at 591. This is prim arily an inquiry into the relevance of the expert testim ony. See id; see also Bocanegra v. Vicm ar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 20 0 3). Expert testim ony is unnecessary if the court finds that “the jury could adeptly assess [the] situation using only their com m on experience and knowledge.” Peters v. Five Star Marine Serv., 898 F.2d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 1990 ). III. D ISCU SSION Dr. Robert is a board-certified neurosurgeon. 11 On March 14, 20 18, he conducted an independent m edical exam ination of plaintiff. 12 Dr. Robert also reviewed plaintiff’s m edical records, including x-ray and MRI im ages of her spine. 13 In his report, Dr. Robert notes that the cervical spine MRI im age is of poor quality, and that he is “unable to visualize the neural foramen on the standard T2 im aging.”14 Dr. Robert further states that “[i]t is difficult to tell from suboptim al im aging whether or not any of this pathology causes any neuroforam inal stenosis. However, it certainly does not cause any spinal 11 12 13 14 R. Doc. 51-1 at 1. R. Doc. 47-4 at 1. Id. at 3. Id. 4 canal stenosis. Additionally, there are no acute findings on the cervical spine MRI to suggest that there has been any recent trauma.”15 Plaintiff does not challenge Dr. Robert’s qualifications. She instead seeks to exclude his opinion related to neuroforam inal stenosis as unreliable because it is based on an MRI im age of insufficient quality. 16 But defendants represent that the im age at issue is an MRI that plaintiff’s treating physicians requested and relied on over the course of plaintiff’s treatm ent. 17 In general, “questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its adm issibility, and should be left for the jury’s consideration.” United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Situated in Lefore County , Mississippi, 80 F.3d 10 74, 10 77 (5th Cir. 1996). That Dr. Robert acknowledges the shortcom ings of the MRI im age and lim its his conclusions accordingly does not render his opinion unreliable and inadm issible. To the extent that plaintiff questions the reliability of Dr. Robert’s opinion in light of suboptim al im aging, she m ay raise those issues on cross-exam ination. Plaintiff further argues that Dr. Robert’s testim ony should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 40 3 because his opinion on neuroforam inal 15 16 17 Id. at 3-4. R. Doc. 47-2 at 2-4, 6. R. Doc. 51 at 1-2. 5 stenosis is ambiguous and its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and m isleading the jury. 18 But plaintiff does not identify any specific unfair prejudice beyond her unsubstantiated assertion that Dr. Robert’s opinions are based on a partisan and defense-biased review of the records. 19 Plaintiff put her physical condition in controversy by asserting that her injuries were caused by the December 15, 20 15 collision. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 10 4, 119 (1964); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a). Defendants are entitled to present evidence from their independent m edical exam ination to contest plaintiff’s assertions regarding her injuries. Further, plaintiff has m ade no showing that Dr. Robert’s testim ony is likely to confuse the issues or m islead the jury. Accordingly, plaintiff’s m otion is denied. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s m otion in lim ine is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ 15th _ day of May, 20 18. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 18 19 R. Doc. 47-2 at 4. Id. at 1. 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.
