Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00296/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-00296-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

LORRAINE COOK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:14cv296-WKW

) (WO)

THE HUGHSTON CLINIC, P.C., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

Now pending before the court is the defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s Experts

Reports (doc. # 29) filed on November 17, 2014. The court held oral arguments on

December 11, 2014. 

The plaintiff identified her treating health care providers, Wendy Hiedel and Dr.

Donald Lakatosh, in her initial disclosures on September 24, 2014. On November 13, 2014,

long after the time to designate expert witnesses, the plaintiff attempted to expand her cadre

of experts by naming Nurse Niedel and Dr. Lakatosh as experts pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.

702. The defendants object to these witnesses testifying as experts. The defendants’

objection is due to be sustained based on the lateness of the identification of these witnesses

as experts. Consequently, the court will grant the defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 29)

to the extent that Nurse Hiedel and Dr. Lakatosh are prohibited from testifying as expert

witnesses under the provision of FED.R.CIV.P. 702.

However, because the witnesses are the plaintiff’s treating health care providers, they

Case 3:14-cv-00296-WKW-CSC Document 39 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 3
are not precluded from testifying as fact witnesses pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 701. See e.g.,

Wilson v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 303 Fed. Appx. 708 (11th Cir. 2008); Chapman v. Proctor &

Gamble Distributing, LLC, 766 F.3d 1296, 1316 (11th Cir. 2014). Of course, with respect

to treating physicians the distinction between a fact and expert witness may not always be

clear.

The testimony of treating physicians presents special evidentiary

problems that require great care and circumspection by the trial court. Much

of the testimony proffered by treating physicians is an account of their

experience in the course of providing care to their patients. Often, however,

their proffered testimony can go beyond that sphere and purport to provide

explanations ofscientific and technical information not grounded in their own

observations and technical experience. When such a situation presents itself,

the trial court must determine whether testimony not grounded in the

physician's own experience meets the standard for admission as expert

testimony. As we pointed out in United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293

(11th Cir.2005), distinguishing between lay and expert testimony is an

important one; arriving at an appropriate conclusion requires that trial courts

be vigilant in ensuring that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702

not “ ‘be evaded through the simple expedient of proffering an expert in lay

witness clothing.’ ” Id. at 1300 (quoting FED.R.EVID. 701 advisorycommittee's

note to the 2000 amendment).

Williams v. Mast Biosurgery USA, Inc., 644 F.3d 1312, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2011) (footnote

omitted).

Finally, because the defendants were again required to file a motion to strike experts

as a direct result of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)(2)(B) regarding

experts, the court concludes that an award of attorney’s fees for filing the motion to strike

is the appropriate sanction in this matter. See FED.R.CIV.P. 37(c)(1). Accordingly, upon

consideration of the motion, for the reasons as stated in open court, and for good cause, it is

2

Case 3:14-cv-00296-WKW-CSC Document 39 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 3
ORDERED the defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 29) be and is hereby GRANTED

to the extent that Nurse Hiedel and Dr. Lakatosh are prohibited from testifying as expert

witnesses pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 702 at the trial of this matter. The parties are

DIRECTED to fully disclose and discuss with Chief United States District Judge W. Keith

Watkins, at the pretrial conference of this case, the evidentiary issues surrounding the

testimony of Nurse Hiedel and Dr. Lakatosh at trial. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel, Thomas Edward Dutton, shall pay to the

defendant the reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, related to the motion

to strike (doc. # 29). 

Done this 23rd day of December, 2014.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 3:14-cv-00296-WKW-CSC Document 39 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 3