Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02583/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02583-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jacob Amrani, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:12-cv-2583 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

United States of America, ) [Re: Motion at docket 189] 

)

Defendant. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 189 plaintiff Jacob Amrani (“Dr. Amrani”) asks the court to preclude

testimony from Dr. Shayam Shridharani (“Dr. Shridharani”) about Dr. Armani’s earning

potential on the grounds that he is not competent to offer opinion testimony pursuant to

Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Defendant United States of America (“United States”)

opposes at docket 192. No reply has been filed. Oral argument would not assist the

court.

II. BACKGROUND

Dr. Amrani is a board certified orthopedic surgeon who specialized in spine

surgery. He practiced for many years in Kansas, but moved to Phoenix in 2006. 

Dr. Amrani’s practice in Phoenix was conducted at his own clinic, the Deer Valley Spine

Case 2:12-cv-02583-JWS Document 211 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Center. Because he is a veteran, Dr. Amrani is eligible to receive his own medical care

from the Veteran’s Administration (“VA”).

Dr. Amrani had been an avid weightlifter and injured his right shoulder lifting

weights. At first, Dr. Amrani avoided seeking care from another physician. Eventually

Dr. Amrani sought treatment at the VA hospital in Phoenix. Dr. Amrani was placed

under the care of Dr. Cranford, a board certified orthopedic surgeon employed by the

VA hospital. On November 17, 2011, Dr. Cranford performed right shoulder rotator cuff

surgery on Dr. Amrani. The surgery included excision of a soft tissue mass in the

shoulder. As a result of the surgery, Dr. Amrani experienced some degree of damage

to the axillary nerve. Dr. Amrani claims that the excision of the soft tissue mass was

undertaken without his consent, was performed negligently, and resulted in the nerve

damage. Dr. Amrani claims that as a result of the medical negligence of Dr. Cranford,

he has experienced a substantial loss of function in his right shoulder and right arm

which has deprived him of the ability to practice spine surgery and has generally

interfered with his enjoyment of life. Dr. Amrani seeks in excess of $6.2 million in

damages.

The United States retained Dr. Shridharani to determine and offer opinion

testimony relating to Dr. Amrani’s earning capacity. Dr. Amrani asks the court to

preclude the opinion testimony on the grounds that Dr. Shridharani does not qualify to

offer such testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

2

Case 2:12-cv-02583-JWS Document 211 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 702 permits opinion testimony by an expert when the witness is qualified

and the witness’s opinion is relevant and reliable.1 With respect to Rule 702, “a district

court’s inquiry into admissibility is a flexible one.”2 The purpose of the district court’s

inquiry is “to screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions” and not to “exclude

opinions merely because they are impeachable.”3 The district court functions as a

“gatekeeper, not a fact finder.”4

Under Rule 702, a witness “is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education.”5 “Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the

knowledge underlying it has a valid connection to the pertinent inquiry. And it is reliable

if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of

the relevant discipline.”6 The district court’s task in screening a scientific opinion for

reliability has been explained in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.7and its

progeny. “The court must assess the expert’s reasoning or methodology, using as

appropriate criteria such as testability, publication in peer-reviewed literature, known or

1Fed. R. Evid. 702.

2City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F. 3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014).

3Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969 (9th Cir. 2013).

4Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 565 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted).

5Fed. R. Evid. 702.

6Primiano, 598 F.3d at 565 (internal quotation omitted).

7509 U.S. 579 (1993).

3

Case 2:12-cv-02583-JWS Document 211 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

potential error rate, and general acceptance.”8

 When non-scientific testimony is at

issue, the “Daubert factors (peer review, publication, potential error rate, etc.) simply

are not applicable . . . .”9 The reliability of such non-scientific testimony depends more

“on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory

behind it.”10

IV. DISCUSSION

Dr. Shridharani is a board certified orthopedic surgeon who has completed a

fellowship in spine surgery. He is currently an assistant professor of orthopedic surgery

at the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Tucson. His curriculum vitae is

lengthy and impressive. His training and experience as a spine surgeon establish that

Dr. Shridharani is qualified to testify about what medical and surgical procedures fall

within the ambit of orthopedic spine surgeons. Furthermore, his deposition testimony

shows that he is familiar with the particular surgical procedures Dr. Amrani has

performed subsequent to his own shoulder surgery. The deposition testimony also

shows that Dr. Shridharani is familiar with the use of spinal injections in the treatment of

back problems. Dr. Shridharani is of the opinion that Dr. Amrani is capable of

administering spinal injections despite the sequella of his own surgery. 

8City of Pomona, 750 F.3d at 1044.

9Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir. 2000)).

10

Id.

4

Case 2:12-cv-02583-JWS Document 211 Filed 12/10/14 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dr. Shridharani’s opinion is based on his own training and experience as an orthopedic

spine surgeon. 

Dr. Amrani’s principal objection to Dr. Shridharani’s qualification is that he is not

a vocational rehabilitation specialist. That objection misses the point. Dr. Shridharani is

not offering an opinion about vocational rehabilitation. His opinion is directed at the

services Dr. Amrani can actually provide as an orthopedic spine surgeon. That is an

area in which Dr. Shridharani is obviously qualified. 

Dr. Amrani also points out that Dr. Shridharani has only six years of experience

as an orthopedic surgeon, that he has generally worked as an employee in large

practice groups rather than as a surgeon with his own private practice, such as the one

Dr. Amrani has operated, that he has never practiced in Phoenix, and that he is

unfamiliar with the market for surgeons in Phoenix. These concerns go to the weight of

Dr. Shridharani’s testimony, not its admissibility.

Dr. Shridharani’s testimony will not address all of the issues relating to

Dr. Amrani’s earning capacity. Nevertheless, what he has to say about the kind of

services that could be provided to patients by Dr. Amrani will be helpful to the trier of

fact. Dr. Shridharani will be allowed to offer opinion testimony under Rule 702.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motion at docket 189 is DENIED.

DATED this 10th day of December 2014.

 /s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 2:12-cv-02583-JWS Document 211 Filed 12/10/14 Page 5 of 5