Garris v. 933387 ONTARIO LTD. et al, No. 5:2017cv00039 - Document 114 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 11/30/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U .S.DISl-.K URT ATRA OIfE,VA FILED IN TH E U N IT ED STATE S D ISTR ICT CO U RT F9R THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA H ARR ISON BU RG D IW SIO N I 42y 2 2213 J L? .DU BY. , LERK LERK JEFFERY T.GARRIS, Plaintiff, Case N o.5:17-cv-38 933387 O N TARTO LTD .,ttal.y By: D efendants. M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictludge KAREN J.GARRIS, Plaintiffy Case N o.5:17-cv-39 933387 ON TARIO LT D .,etal.y By: D efendants. M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictludge M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N Tiaism attetcom esbefore the colzrton D efendants'm odon in lim ine,ftled on N ovember9,2018,to excludeand/orlimitthetestimonyofDr.GeotgeVan Osten on Plaindffs'futarem edicalcateand expenses.ECF N o.84;ECF N o.93.Forthereasons Garris v. 933387 ONTARIO LTD. et al explained below,D efendants?m otion isG RAN TED . Doc. 114 1. Plaintiffshave idendfied D t.Van O sten asan expettexpected to teséfy asto theit future tteatm entand thecostofsuch treatm ent.SeeECF N o.16,61;ECF N o.16,66. Defendantshavem oved to excludethistestimony on t'wogrounds:1)Plainéffshavefailed Dockets.Justia.com tocomplyv4t.11Rule26(a)(2)(B)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure;and2)theproffered testim ony istoo speculadve to be adnzissible.Thecourtwilladdressthese t'wo groundsin turn. A. Defendant'sflzstobjectiondealswithFedezalRuleofCivilProcedure26(a)(2)(B), which requiresallwitrlessespresenting evidence underFederalRuleofEvidence 702,703,or 705 to prepare and sign awritten report,including the expert'sopinions,thebasisforthese opinions,andthefactsanddatausedinfornaingtheopinions.Fed.R.Civ.P.26(a)(2)(B). D r.Van O sten,though designated ,asan expertwitness,hasprovided no such report.l Plaindffs,in theirm em ozandum in opposition to thism otion,do notcl/im thatD r.Van O sten hasatany pointprovided an expertreport.They referonly to D r.Van O sten's quav cationsandhishistoryoftreatingKaren andlefferyGarris.ECF No.104,2 - 3. D z.Van O sten hastteated 170th plaindffs,wllich would pet-mithim to tesdfyin llis capacityasatteadng physician.Treating physiciansare notgenerally reqllired to provide a zeportto testify,butare instead lim ited in thei. ttestim ony.H allv.S kes,164 F.R.D .46,48- 49 (E.D.Va.1995).AnyexpertwhoisTfretained oremployed to renderamedicalopinion based on factorsthatw ere notlearned in thecourseoftreatnentofthepadent''would have to provide the courtwith areport.Id. D efendantsargue thatD r.Van O sten isnottesdfying asa treating physician,butasa medicalexpert.Dr.Van Osten lasttreatedJefferyGazrisinlanuaryof2018.ECF No.85-1, 7- 8;ECF N o.94-1,7- 8.H elastsaw K aren G arrisbefore hezperm anentspinalcord 1A sD efendantspointout, the expettdesignadon doesnotm eettlle cziteria ofan expeztteport.See E.C.F.N o.16. stim ulatorwasim planted.ECF N o.85-1,61;ECF N o.94-1,61.D efendantsatgue thatthe inform ation D r.V an O sten isusingin histestim ony did notcom efrom tzeatm entofeither Karen orlefferyGarrisand wasinsteadpathered from conversationswith Plaintiffs'counsel. D efendantsalso clnim thattestim ony aboutfuture m edicaltrea% entand expenses,by its verynature,falls outsideofthepurview ofa tzeadng physician. Thecotzrtagreeswit.h D efendants.W hileD r.Van O sten m ay testifyasto facts learned and opinionsderived from histreatm entofPlaintiffs,hem ay notteséfyabout eventsthatocctlrred afterhistteatm ent.An opinion based on inform ation gained outside of tteatm entm ustbeoffered by an expertwitness,notatreating physician.M cD onald v.W a1- MartStoresEast,LP,2008W L 153782,at*3 (E.D.Va.Jan.14,2008).AsDr.Van Osten hasnotprovided an expertreport,hism erely designated testim ony doesnotcom plywith Rule26(a)(2)(B). B. D efendantsnextargue thattheproffered testim ony isspeculaéve.lkicev.W illiam s statesthatevidenceoffuture m edicalexpensesisonly adtnissibleifffbroughtoutofthe realm ofspeculation into thereahn ofzeasonableprobability;the 1aw in thisareadealsin fprobabilities'andnotTpossibiliées'.''2017WL 3197242,at*1(W .D.Va.2017)(quodng StateFatm M ut.Auto.lns.Co.v.Kendtick,254 Va.206,208- 09,491 S.E.2d 286,287 (1997:.D efendantspointoutthatduringhisdeposition,Dr.Van Ostenwasam bivalent abouttheprobabilityofhisown projecéonsofKaren andlefferyGarris'futtzretreaM ent. Finally,D efendantsarguethatPlaintiffscleatly intend D r.V an O sten to calctzlate futute m edicalcostson the stand,and thatthisis130th outside ofl' lisexperdse and speculadve. 3 W hiletheexpertdesignationrecommendedlefferyGarrisreceivethreenetve denervationsperyear,Dr.VanOstenstatedthathehadnowayofknowingifJefferyGatris would need them .ECF 85-1,77;ECF N o.94-1,77.Sim ilarly,the expertdesignation states: 1)Karen Gartis'spinalcord stimulatorwillstopworkingin 10-15years;2)atthatpoint,she willrequirenervedenervations;and 3)shewillrequiretreatmentw1t. 11Fentanylpatches.ECF N o.16,3.D r.Van O sten'sopinion on tlaelifespan ofa spinalcord stim ulatorisnotbased on histreatnentofK aren G arris,asitwasimplanted m onthsafterhetreated her.H e providesno basisforhisopinion on how m any nerve denervadonsK aren G arriswillrequire peryear,andinstead teséfied thatpain managem entisftkedetectivework'?and thathehas no way ofpredicéng how m any proceduzesshew ould need,orifshe would need them at all.ECF N o.85-1,119;ECF N o.94-1,119.D z.Van O sten also stated he cannotsay what dosage ofFentanylK aren G arrism ay need in thefuture.ECF N o.85-1,72;ECF N o.94-1, Plaintiffsrespond thatD r.Van O sten isa qualified and skilled pain m anagem ent specialist,and thathisopinionsare based on hisown extensive qualihcationsand experience. ECF N o.104,2 - 3.D r.V an O sten'squalificationsnotwithstanding,llistestim ony asto the futare tteatm entsrem ainsin therealm ofpossibilities,ratherthan probabiliées.D r.Van O sten him selfstatesrepeatedly in hisdeposition thathe doesnotknow with any certaintyif eitherplaintiffisgoing to need the futuretrea% entsto wllich hetestifies.See ECF N o.85- 1,72;ECF N o.94-1,72.Fairfax H os italS stem v.Curtisstates,:fA m edicalopinion based on afTpossibilitf'isitzelevant,putelyspeculative,and,hence,inadmissible.''249Va.531, 535(1995).Dr.VanOsten'stestimonyconcernspossibilities,notprobabilides.I-lis tesfim onyregarding future treatm entisspeculative,and thusm ustbe excluded. II. D r.V an O sten m ay testify asto histteatm entoftheplaindffsand theopinions reflected in llistrear entrecords.H em ay notofferany tesfim ony asto treatm entofeither plaintiffthathasoccurred afterhelastsaw them .H e m ay notteséfy asto possible future complicadonsorfuttzretreatmentsKaren orlefferyGarrismayneed,incluingwhen Karen G arris'spinalcord stim ulatorwilicease functioning,how m any nerve denervationseither Karen orlefferyGarriswillrequire,andwhetherKaren Garriswillrequiretreatment* t.11 opioids. An appropriate orderwillbeentered thisday. Entered:N ovember30,2018 */ -,c2. v# . , ' . . . M iC11ZClV fv '''' CYCF 'tcd t2tCSDisWictJV2gQ 5 '
]]>
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.
