Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00155/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00155-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

IN THE UNITED STA ES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRI T OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHER DIVISION 

JAMES KINGMAN and 

REBECCA KINGMAN PLAINTIFFS 

v. No. 3:18-c -155-DPM 

CHARLI JOSEPH and TRANSNE 

FREIGHT LTD. 

The Court thanks the pa 

DEFENDANTS 

the helpful color-coded 

deposition transcripts. The binder were much appreciated, as was the 

parties' crisp presentation of thei remaining disputes. The Court's 

rulings are in the margins of the at achment. 

So Ordered. 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu ent 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 1 of 9 

UNITED STATES !STRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTR CT OF ARKANSAS 

JAMES KINGMAN AND 

REBECCA KINGMAN, 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

CHARLI JOSEPH AND 

TRANSNET FREIGHT LTD., 

Defendants. 

NORTHE DIVISION 

CASE NO: 3:18-cv-155-DPM 

[Assigned to The Honorable District Judge 

D.P. Marshall, Jr.] 

JOINT REPORT ON DEPOSIT ON DESIGNATION DISPUTES 

Plaintiffs James Kingman and Rebecca Kingman, and Defendants Transnet Freight Ltd. 

("Transnet") and Charli Joseph ("Joseph"), coll ctively "The Parties", submit this Joint Report on 

Deposition Designation Disputes. The Parties changed their deposition designations, counterdesignations, and objections with each other nd attempted to resolve any disputes between 

themselves. However, the following disputes re ain for the Court to resolve: 

(1) DEPOSITION OF DR. JAMES WEB DATED 12/15/2020- EXHIBIT A 

a) Defendants' Unresolved Ob"ection to Plaintiffs' Desi nations 

Defendants' Objections: 22:7-16; The question by Plaintiffs' counsel is an improper 

request to judge or bolster another p rty's credib lity or character that has not been attacked, F.R.E. 

609(a), and invades the provinc of the j ry. Further, objections other than form and 

responsiveness were reserved until trial. See eposition transcript at 3:1-4. Objection to the 

admissibility of evidence may be rai ed at trial. F.R.C.P. 32(b). 

Plaintiffs' Response: There should hav been an objection, but was not. Question might 

have been leading, but otherwise as proper. The Defendants are claiming that Rebecca and 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu ent 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 2 of 9 

' ' o-F Dr. we..bb'.s OflfJJON . 

James Kingman are not being h 

j O V'-e..rc-~le.d . Or-Je... ~~+ ~G1⁄4"-

nest about t e exti t of their injuries and the cause of thei~ c.r;-h·c,v-e.... \.,:;,0\.~1·~ of ~o 

a question w re no reserved. ~r-+s of I N 1 injuries. Objections to the form ,:n,,,__ • 

improper references to a witness (Dr. Greg W od) who has not testified; asking one witness to 

attack the credibility of another; pitting one wit ess against another. Dr. Webb, the deponent, did 

not rely on Dr. Wood for an opinion. 

Plaintiffs' Response: The doctor was simply stating all the information that he had 

reviewed when giving his expert opinions. Als , this expert was simply testifying that sometimes 

experts disagree. This type of answer is mor 

A-ll ~~ ckJ ~ excluded. I rvo+ +,, c..01..l\ 

~ Plaintiffs will agree to 

Defendants determine to not call Dr. Wood. 

properly explained on cross, but should not be . 1 

c,...~\/11\R..;t.A-+- ,·+ D~<MA-71. c:u...c..1d.e_ 

r. Wood. 

ot use this testimony if, by the time of trial, 

treatment. In their initial disc osures and resp nses to specific interrogatories and requests for 

production of documents/ cerning future m dical damages, Plaintiffs Rebecca Kingman and 

James Kingman did / produce any docu ents or calculations supporting future medical 

expenses, any itemiza on or specification of th amount of any such future medical expenses they 

were claiming, no the required present value f any such future medical expenses. Further, the 

doctor was not sked in the deposition to prov· e a cost or valuation estimate for future medical 

treatment. T: erefore, testimony about future m dical treatment, without any shred of foundational 

proofabo tits cost or value, is not relevant an should not be allowed. F.R.E. 401 and 402. Ifit 

is in th's context, Plaintiffs' counsel would be llowed to ask for damages which have never been 

ded to Defendants or enumerated befo e closing arguments. Not only would this be 

Ov e1/\ ~ . .5-v+h ·,:.. ~ t-

?a-.s+ tM.R.dM.c-..l €.X~5e 

°'" ~+ 1 ,· kl i kir-t>d o -F 

fh-o-vt·b s,v;:--f;-~+ 

~ lo SV('"e_. ; N cl-t.ac.tN€1'--y err is we, 

1 p Iv s Dr. 1./\Je. \o k. '.s k > -h. M \h-\. /

~~cl ~ --Fv+vre. ka-.~; 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu ent 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 3 of 9 

prejudicial to Defendants and confusing to the ·ury under F.R.E. 403; the jury would be tasked 

with speculating in awarding such damages wit out supporting proof from a medical professional. 

Statements from Plaintiffs' counsel about the urported amount or calculation of such damages 

are not evidence. 

Plaintiffs' Response: Plaintiffs have al ays maintained that the injuries suffered in this 

accident are pennanent in nature. See Plaint ffs' Complaint, initial disclosures, responses to 

discovery, medical records and proposed jur instructions. Dr. Webb is a qualified treating 

medical expert and is giving his opinion about he Plaintiffs' prognosis, nature, extent, duration, 

and permanency of their injuries, and his opini n about future medical treatment. These are all 

legitimate areas for this qualified treating medi al expert to testify upon. Dr. Webb does not have 

to use any magic words or specific calculatio The jury will have to determine what future 

medical treatment Plaintiffs will be needed ba d on all the testimony and evidence produced at 

trial. As noted by the comment to AMI 2204, " f]uture medical expenses do not require the same 

specificity as past medical expenses and may b established by a showing of a degree of medical 

certainty of future medical expenses." See also West Union v. Vostatek, 302 Ark. 2 I 9, 222, 788 

S.W.2d 952, 954 (1990). 

More specifically, in Plaintiffs' First A ended Complaint, in paragraphs nine (9) and ten 

(10), Plaintiffs alleged the following;_ 

9. As a proximate result of the neglige ce of Defendants, James Kingman 

sustained a severe and permanent in ury to his head, neck, back, hips, 

shoulders and legs as well as a shoe to his entire nervous system. As a 

proximate result of said injury, Jam s Kingman has sustained a loss of earning 

capacity, has undergone excruciatin pain and suffering and mental anguish in 

the past and will continue to underg such pain and suffering and mental 

anguish in the future, has incurred edical expenses in the past and will 

continue to incur such expenses in t e future. 

10. As a proximate result of the neglige ce of Defendants, Rebecca Kingman 

sustained a severe and permanent i ·ury to her head, neck, back, shoulders 

3 -

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 4 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 4 of 9 

and legs, as well as a shock to her en ire nervous system. As a proximate 

result of said injury, Rebecca Kingm n has sustained a loss of earning 

capacity, has undergone excruciatin pain and suffering and mental anguish in 

the past and will continue to underg such pain and suffering and mental 

anguish in the future, has incurred m .dical expenses in the past and will 

continue to incur such expenses in t e future. 

Also in Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures, Plaintiffs I sted on all of the medical care provider witnesses 

in response to Paragraph (A) that "Said doctor( ) will testify as to the nature, extent and duration 

of Plaintiff [Rebecca Kingman] [James Kingma } injuries and as to the substance of their reports. 

Also stated in Response to Paragraph (C) of Pia ntiffs' Initial Disclosure the following: 

(l) Plaintiffs have provided Defi ndants with medical bills and outof-pocket expenses and damages .incurred by Nicholas Adams, 

James Kingman, and Rebecca K ngman along with copies of their 

specials, including their persona property destroyed in the 

accident. Plaintiffs will supplem nt any additional bills. A jury 

will determine Plaintiffs' compe 'sation for the nature, extent, 

duration, and permanency of the r injuries, their pain, suffering, 

and mental anguish both past an , 'future and any past and future 

bills or loss of earnings and earn hg capacity. 

Lastly, in Plaintiffs' Answers to Interroga bries, Plaintiffs answered the as follows to 

Interrogatories 4, 5, 9 and 19: 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: , IDENTIFY each injury you attribute 

to the SUBJECT ACCIDENT and the a ea of your body affected. 

ANSWER: See Plaintiffs' Co plaint and the medical records attached to 

Plaintiffs' response to Request for Pr duction of Documents and/or Plaintiffs' 

initial Disclosures. This answer can be more fully developed during a deposition 

setting. Plaintiffs continue to suffer om their injuries and continue to receive 

treatment for said injuries. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: I ; ENTIFY any complaints YOU still have 

that YOU attribute to the SUBJECT A pDENT including whether the complaint 

is subsiding, remaining the same, or ~ecoming worse, and the frequency and 

duration of the complaint. 

ANSWER: Rebecca: The ri ;t side of my face and teeth hurt. I have 

ringing in my ears. My lower and mid pack hurts continually. My neck hurts. I 

4-

j 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 5 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu 

have ear pain and swelling issues. I 

discomfort. I believe I have depression 

Filed 01/13/22 Page 5 of 9 

i 

kve sleep problems due to my pain and 1

s well. 

I 

James: My back, neck, entire ieft side and hips hurt. I cannot sleep 

comfortably and wake up during the nig 1t a lot. I am depressed. I do not feel like 

we are getting any better. 1 

INTERERROGATORY NO. IDENTIFY any health care provider 

who has advised that YOU may require • ture or additional treatment for injuries 

that you attribute to the SUBJECT AC IDENT, including the complaints for 

which the treatment was advised and th :nature, duration, and estimated cost of 

such treatment. 

ANSWER: See medical rec rds attached to Plaintiffs' Response to 

Request for Production of Documen ~ and/or Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures. 

Rebecca's VA doctor, Dr. Lambert; Dr. J:loyer and Dr. Campbell have all advised 

her she needs continued treatment. ' r. Campbell advised James he needed 

additional treatment. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: i IfYOU claim that YOU will lose 

income in the future as a result of the S iBJECT ACCIDENT, state an estimate of 

the amount of loss and how long you w·tt be unable to work including how the 

claim for future income is calculated. ! 

ANSWER: Plaintiffs cannot c llculate this at this time due to them not 

knowing how much James may be able b earn if he recovers fully from his 

injuries. At this time, he is still injured. !Also, it is unknown when or if James 

will be able to go back to college due to his injuries. Arkansas does not require 

certainty of loss of earning capacity. A ·~ry based on the facts in this case will 

have to determine fair amount. ! 

6 Defendants' Desi nations 

=----- I 

Plaintiffs' ob·ections 64:20-65:7; a ~ng and compound questions. 

Defendants' Response: This is a prope inquiry, on cross-examination, that is relevant to 

one of Defendants' primary d fenses - that . s. Kingman would have continued to seek and 

i 

receive repeated medical treat ent in 2018 a 6 beyond, just as she had for thirty years prior, 

' 

whether the subject accident e r occurred. He ~actor, in his answer, more likely than not, agreed 

i 

she would have. The testimon is defense, supported by the evidence, and should 

i 

l J L-o...y-ltl.-e-d ~t- ifY1-~ <!A.05$ 

o -

I 

I 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 6 of 18
I Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docum nt 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 6 of 9 

be allowed. Leadingquestionsarepermittedon ,ross. / O_r"2/V\ule..d ·~fo,tM- ~~~ L _ ·-. ·- Dt.J ~O.;"$ 0\ ~T. 

(2) DEPOSITION OF JUSTIN CAMPBE ,L, O9ATED 9/24/2020 - EXHIBIT B 

a) Plaintiffs' Unresolved Ob"ections t 1~ndants' Desi nations 

Plaintiffs' Objections: 53 :21-54: 1 ; Obj ~tion to fonn. In his question defense counsel 

failed to ask a question to the Chiropractic Doc ~r witness, but instead gave the witness defense I 

counsels version of what he believed is the deft ition of a term that has been used, laminectomy 

syndrome. Plaintiffs' counsel promptly objecte and then the Chiropractic doctor, who had been 

told to answer even if there is an objection simp stated, "I believe so, yes." 

Defendants' Response: This was a pr rl er inquiry on cross examination requesting the 

doctor's understanding and explanation of M . Kingman's preexisting medical diagnosis and 

treatment. As noted above, the testimony is rele r t to her post accident claims of injury and pain, 

and should be allowed. There is nothing impro er as to the form of the question. 

0 "-vvv,.J Le. d . $ o-W\L AJl a.SD N 

Plaintiffs' Objections: 56:17-22; 0 ~ect on to form. o-...s c,...~cnre. . ?la...o-..$-e... • -Hu_ 

I e...t.' wt \M.o,... +e.. c, 1⁄2'ec.-1;1 · o N I i.J 

Defendants' Response: This was a pro er inquiry on cross examination and relevant to e_d~'tt-e..d 

the causation opinion, treatment and prognosis estions from Plaintiffs' counsel concerning Ms. 

Kingman, since the doctor confirmed he did no I ow her preexisting condition while answering 

questions on direct. The inquiry is also relevant (o Ms. Kingman's claim that the subject accident 

is the cause for all her subsequent medical treat [ ent and expense and Defendants' defense to the 

contrary. The testimony should be allowed. 

question. 

I 

ere is nothing improper as to the form of the 

T 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 7 of 18
I 

(3) 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu rt 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 7 of 9 

DEPOSITION OF DR. MICHAEL B YER DATED 10/15/2020 - EXHIBIT C 

a) 

In their initial disclosures and responses to spe i 1c interrogatories and requests for production of 

I 

documents concerning future medical damages, Plaintiffs Rebecca Kingman and James Kingman 

did not produce any documents or calculat r ns supporting future medical expenses, any 

itemization or specification of the amount of an juch future medical expenses they were claiming, 

nor the required present value of any such fut e medical expenses. Further, the doctor was not 

asked in the deposition to provide a cost or aluation estimate for future medical treatment. 

Therefore, testimony about future medical tre ment, without any shred of foundational proof 

about its cost or value, is not relevant and shou f not be allowed. F.R.E. 401 and 402. If it is in 

this context, Plaintiffs' counsel would be allo ed to ask for damages which have never been 

provided to Defendants or enumerated befo closing arguments. Not only would this be 

prejudicial to Defendants and confusing to the ury under F.R.E. 403; the jury would be tasked 

with speculating in awarding such damages wit ut supporting proof from a medical professional. 

Statements from Plaintiffs' counsel about the rported amount or calculation of such damages 

are not evidence. 

Plaintiffs' Response: Plaintiffs have a · ays maintained that the injuries suffered in this 

accident are permanent in nature. See Plain ·r, fs' Complaint, initial disclosures, responses to 

discovery, medical records and proposed jur instructions. Dr. Webb is a qualified treating 

medical expert and is giving his opinion about he Plaintiffs' prognosis, nature, extent, duration, 

and permanency of their injuries, and his opin · ! n about future medical treatment. These are all 

legitimate areas for this qualified treating medi 1 expert to testify upon. Dr. Webb does not have 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 8 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docum Int 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 8 of 9 

to use any magic words or specific calculation The jury will have to determine what future 

medical treatment Plaintiffs will need based on I the testimony and evidence produced at trial. 

(4) DEPOSITION OF DR. JAMES WEB · DATED 8/8/2021 (Second Deposition) 

The parties are proposing that they b allowed to submit their designations on this 

deposition before the close of business on Tues y, January I 8, 2022. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this l I day of January, 2022. 

SEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

T SNET FREIGHT, LTD. and 

C ~LIE JOSEPH 

J. ~ep,hen Kennedy, MS Bar No. I 00040 

Ad itted to USDC, Eastern Dist. of AR 

WI SON ELSER MOSKOWITZ 

E LMAN & DICKER LLP 

14 Meadowbrook Road, Suite 100 

Jae son, MS 39211 

Te: (601) 499-8077 

Fa (601) 499-8078 

ste ~kennedy@wilsonelser.com 

Je ey W. Puryear (AR Bar No. 93109) 

W ACK,PHELPSPURYEAR 

M l FIELD & McNEIL, P.A. 

Po Office Box 3077 

Jo sboro, Arkansas 72403 

Ph ~e: (870) 932-0900 

Fa (870) 932-2553 

jpu ear@wpmfirm.com 

C ~SEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

JA ES KINGMAN AND 

72 Cherry Street 

He na, Arkansas 72342 

(8 !)338-3591 

F : (870)338-7201 

E I IL: louis@etochlaw.com 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 9 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu Int 84 Filed 01/13/22 Page 9 of 9 

CERTIFICAT OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby t rtifies that on January 13, 2022, the foregoing 

document a true and correct copy was served n all counsel of record by CM/ECF Electronic 

Notification, including the following: 

Louis A. Etoch 

Etoch Law Firm 

P.O. Box 100 

Helena, AR 72342 

Louis@etochlaw.com 

Isl. Ste hen Kenned 

Stephen Kennedy 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 10 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docum · nt 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 8 

UNITED STATES 1 !STRICT COURT 

EASTERN DIST CT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHE DIVISION 

JAMES KINGMAN AND 

REBECCA KINGMAN, CASE NO: 3:l 8-cv-155-DPM 

Plaintiffs, 

V. [Assigned to The Honorable District Judge 

D.P. Marshall, Jr.] 

CHARLI JOSEPH AND 

TRANSNET FREIGHT LTD., 

Defendants. 

SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT REPORT ON EPOSITION DESIGNATION DISPUTES 

(James Webb, M.D. ta en on August 11, 2021) 

Plaintiffs James Kingman and Rebecca , ingman, and Defendants Transnet Freight Ltd. 

("Transnet") and Charli Joseph ("Joseph"), coll ctively "The Parties", submit this Supplemental 

Joint Report on Deposition Designation Dis utes. The Parties exchanged their deposition 

designations, counter-designations, and objecti s with each other and attempted to resolve any 

disputes between themselves. However, the foll · ing disputes remain for the Court to resolve: 

(1) DEPOSITION OF DR. JAMES WEB DATED 8/11/2021- EXHIBIT D1 

O ve,r-r \A. l-e_.d_ . 

S&.- f""'''n AV I tM,d . 

Defendants' Ob· ections: questions concern future medical treatment. In 

their initial disclosures and responses to speci I interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents concerning future medical damages, laintiffs Rebecca Kingman and James Kingman 

did not produce any documents or calculat ns supporting future medical expenses, any 

itemization or specification of the amount of any uch future medical expenses they were claiming, 

1 Exhibits A-Care included in the original Joint Rep rt on Deposition Designation Disputed. See Dkt. 

No. 84. 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 11 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu nt 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 8 

nor the required present value of any such fut e medical expenses. Further, the doctor was not 

asked in the deposition to provide a cost or aluation estimate for future medical treatment. 

Therefore, testimony about future medical tre tment, without any shred of foundational proof 

about its cost or value, is not relevant and sho I not be allowed. F.R.E. 401 and 402. If it is in 

this context, Plaintiffs' counsel would be all ( d to ask for damages which have never been 

provided to Defendants or enumerated befo ~ closing arguments. Not only would this be 

prejudicial to Defendants and confusing to th ury under F.R.E. 403; the jury would be tasked 

with speculating in awarding such damages wit ut supporting proof from a medical professional. 

Statements from Plaintiffs' counsel about the rported amount or calculation of such damages 

are not evidence. 

Plaintiffs' Response: Plaintiffs have ays maintained that the injuries suffered in this 

accident are permanent in nature. See Plain i fs' Complaint, initial disclosures, responses to 

discovery, medical records and proposed jur instructions. Dr. Webb is a qualified treating 

medical expert and is giving his opinion abou he Plaintiffs' prognosis, nature, extent, duration, 

and permanency of their injuries, and his opin n about future medical treatment. These are all 

legitimate areas for this qualified treating medi I expert to testify upon. Dr. Webb does not have 

to use any magic words or specific calculatio The jury will have to determine what future 

medical treatment Plaintiffs will be needed b d on all the testimony and evidence produced at 

trial. As noted by the comment to AMI 2204, ' uture medical expenses do not require the same 

specificity as past medical expenses and may established by a showing ofa degree of medical 

certainty of future medical expenses." See als , West Union v. Vostatek, 302 Ark. 219, 222, 788 

S.W.2d 952, 954 (1990). 

More specifically, in Plaintiffs' First A ended Complaint, in paragraphs nine (9) and ten 

2-

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 12 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docum t 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 8 

(10), Plaintiffs alleged the followin~ 

9. As a proximate result of the negligen . of Defendants, James Kingman 

sustained a severe and permanent inj y to his head, neck, back, hips, 

shoulders and legs as well as a shock his entire nervous system. As a 

proximate result of said injury, James ingman has sustained a loss of earning 

capacity, has undergone excruciating ain and suffering and mental anguish in 

the past and will continue to undergo ~ch pain and suffering and mental 

anguish in the future, has incurred m ical expenses in the past and will 

continue to incur such expenses in th future. 

I 0. As a proximate result of the negligen of Defendants, Rebecca Kingman 

sustained a severe and permanent inj y to her head, neck, back, shoulders 

and legs, as well as a shock to her ent e nervous system. As a proximate 

result of said injury, Rebecca Kingm i has sustained a loss of earning 

capacity, has undergone excruciating ain and suffering and mental anguish in 

the past and will continue to undergo uch pain and suffering and mental 

anguish in the future, has incurred m , ical expenses in the past and will 

continue to incur such expenses in th future. 

Also in Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures, Plaintiffs Ii ed on all of the medical care provider witnesses 

in response to Paragraph (A) that "Said doctor(s will testify as to the nature, extent and duration 

of Plaintiff [Rebecca Kingman] [James Kingma injuries and as to the substance of their reports. 

Also stated in Response to Paragraph (C) of Plai tiffs' Initial Disclosure the following: 

Lastly, in 

(1) Plaintiffs have provided Defe ants with medical bills and outof-pocket expenses and damages curred by Nicholas Adams, 

James Kingman, and Rebecca Ki man along with copies of their 

specials, including their personal roperty destroyed in the 

accident. Plaintiffs will suppleme t any additional bills. A jury 

will determine Plaintiffs' compe ation for the nature, extent, 

duration, and permanency of thei t·njuries, their pain, suffering, 

and mental anguish both past and uture and any past and future 

bills or Joss of earnings and earni l capacity. 

Plaintiffs' Answers to Interrogat ries, Plaintiffs answered the as follows to 

Interrogatories 4, 5, 9 and 19: 

INTERROGATORY NO. 4: IDENTIFY each injury you attribute 

to the SUBJECT ACCIDENT and the a a of your body affected. 

ANSWER: See Plaintiffs' Com taint and the medical records attached to 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 13 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu lnt 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 8 

Plaintiffs' response to Request for Pr l uction of Documents and/or Plaintiffs' 

Initial Disclosures. This answer can be jnore fully developed during a deposition 

setting. Plaintiffs continue to suffer fi , m their injuries and continue to receive 

treatment for said injuries. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: I ENTIFY any complaints YOU still have 

that YOU attribute to the SUBJECT A ID ENT including whether the complaint 

is subsiding, remaining the same, ecoming worse, and the frequency and 

duration of the complaint. 

ANSWER: Rebecca: The ri t side of my face and teeth hurt. I have 

ringing in my ears. My lower and mid ack hurts continually. My neck hurts. I 

have ear pain and swelling issues. I ave sleep problems due to my pain and 

discomfort. I believe I have depression !s well. 

James: My back, neck, entir left side and hips hurt. I cannot sleep 

comfortably and wake up during the ni ta lot. I am depressed. I do not feel like 

we are getting any better. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9: 

who has advised that YOU may require 

that you attribute to the SUBJECT AC 

which the treatment was advised and th 

such treatment. 

IDENTIFY any health care provider 

ture or additional treatment for injuries 

ENT, including the complaints for 

nature, duration, and estimated cost of 

ANSWER: See medical rec {ds attached to Plaintiffs' Response to 

Request for Production of Docume ,s and/or Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures. 

Rebecca's VA doctor, Dr. Lambert; Dr Boyer and Dr. Campbell have all advised 

her she needs continued treatment. r. Campbell advised James he needed 

additional treatment. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 19: IfYOU claim that YOU will lose 

income in the future as a result of the S BJECT ACCIDENT, state an estimate of 

the amount of loss and how long you w I be unable to work including how the 

claim for future income is calculated. 

ANSWER: Plaintiffs cannot alculate this at this time due to them not 

knowing how much James may be able earn if he recovers fully from his injuries. 

At this time, he is still injured. Also, i is unknown when or if James will be able 

to go back to college due to his injuries. Arkansas does not require certainty ofloss 

of earning capacity. A jury based on t e facts in this case will have to determine 

fair amount. 

4-

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 14 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docume t 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 8 

Ov-e.N\ 11 l e.d . s-(9:l_ ~ A"1⁄2· 

Defendants' Ob'ections 22:18-23:6. h se questions concern future medical treatment. 

In their initial disclosures and responses to speci c interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents concerning future medical damages, aintiffs Rebecca Kingman and James Kingman 

did not produce any documents or calculati s supporting future medical expenses, any 

itemization or specification of the amount of any s j ch future medical expenses they were claiming, 

nor the required present value of any such futur medical expenses. Further, the doctor was not 

asked in the deposition to provide a cost or v luation estimate for future medical treatment. 

Therefore, testimony about future medical treat ent, without any shred of foundational proof 

about its cost or value, is not relevant and shout not be allowed. F.R.E. 401 and 402. If it is in 

this context, Plaintiffs' counsel would be allo • d to ask for damages which have never been 

provided to Defendants or enumerated befor closing arguments. Not only would this be 

prejudicial to Defendants and confusing to the j ry under F.R.E. 403; the jury would be tasked 

with speculating in awarding such damages with t supporting proof from a medical professional. 

Statements from Plaintiffs' counsel about the p ported amount or calculation of such damages 

are not evidence. 

Plaintiffs' Response: Plaintiffs have al ays maintained that the injuries suffered in this 

accident are permanent in nature. See Plainti s' Complaint, initial disclosures, responses to 

discovery, medical records and proposed jury nstructions. Dr. Webb is a qualified treating 

medical expert and is giving his opinion about t e Plaintiffs' prognosis, nature, extent, duration, 

and permanency of their injuries, and his opini about future medical treatment. These are all 

legitimate areas for this qualified treating medic expert to testify upon. Dr. Webb does not have 

to use any magic words or specific calculation The jury will have to determine what future 

medical treatment Plaintiffs will need based on I the testimony and evidence produced at trial. 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 15 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docu nt 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 6 of 8 

' 

O v-l.Nl u Led . 5-e.e.. ~ (T\.-,, 

f'.Ul1⁄2"--~ . 

Defendants' Objections: 39:2 (beginnin at "so") - 39: 18. These questions concern future 

medical treatment. In their initial disclosures a responses to specific interrogatories and requests 

for production of documents concerning future edical damages, Plaintiffs Rebecca Kingman and 

James Kingman did not produce any docu nts or calculations supporting future medical 

expenses, any itemization or specification of th amount of any such future medical expenses they 

were claiming, nor the required present value f any such future medical expenses. Further, the 

doctor was not asked in the deposition to prov e a cost or valuation estimate for future medical 

treatment. Therefore, testimony about future m ical treatment, without any shred of foundational 

proof about its cost or value, is not relevant an should not be allowed. F.R.E. 401 and 402. Ifit 

is in this context, Plaintiffs' counsel would be lowed to ask for damages which have never been 

provided to Defendants or enumerated befort closing arguments. Not only would this be 

prejudicial to Defendants and confusing to th ·ury under F.R.E. 403; the jury would be tasked 

with speculating in awarding such damages wit 

I 

ut supporting proof from a medical professional. 

Statements from Plaintiffs' counsel about the urported amount or calculation of such damages 

are not evidence. 

Plaintiffs' Response: Plaintiffs have ways maintained that the injuries suffered in this 

accident are permanent in nature. See Plain ffs' Complaint, initial disclosures, responses to 

discovery, medical records and proposed jur instructions. Dr. Webb is a qualified treating 

medical expert and is giving his opinion abou he Plaintiffs' prognosis, nature, extent, duration, 

and permanency of their injuries, and his opin r about future medical treatment. These are all 

legitimate areas for this qualified treating medi r expert to testify upon. Dr. Webb does not have 

to use any magic words or specific calculatio The jury will have to determine what future 

medical treatment Plaintiffs will need based on II the testimony and evidence produced at trial. 

6-

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 16 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docuj I nt 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 7 of 8 _ 

O r- t'3⁄4..\~ • S-e.e. p----; of" f u / 1/11\. ~ • 

~ 

I d..v ck.cl I.;, If Q_ °(J'U.P-W\..LtA..t ; -f-

-e.,,,...d!Nv\.-h; ck..~i J..q_ Nb+- -ti> L~ 11 

Defendants' Objection~h questions and answers are improper references 

,. \.NOdd . 

to a witness (Dr. Greg Wood) who has not testi I d; asking one witness to attack the credibility of 

another; pitting one witness against another. . Webb, the deponent, did not rely on Dr. Wood 

for an opinion. 

Plaintiffs' Response: The doctor wa simply stating all the information that he had 

reviewed when giving his expert opinions. Als , this expert was simply testifying that sometimes 

experts disagree. This type of answer is mor properly explained on cross, but should not be 

excluded. 

NOTE: Plaintiffs will agree to not use t is testimony if, by the time of trial, Defendants 

determine to not call Dr. Wood. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1 h day of January, 2022. 

UNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

T NSNET FREIGHT, LTD. and 

C ARLIE JOSEPH 

J. tephen Kennedy, MS Bar No. 100040 

A itted to USDC, Eastern Dist. of AR 

W SON ELSER MOSKOWITZ 

E , , LMAN & DICKER LLP 

1 0 Meadowbrook Road, Suite 100 

Ja son, MS 39211 

T I: (601) 499-8077 

F : (601) 499-8078 

e.kennedy@wilsonelser.com 

rey W. Puryear (AR Bar No. 93109) 

MACK, PHELPS PURYEAR 

YFIELD & McNEIL, P.A. 

t Office Box 3077 

Jo esboro, Arkansas 72403 

P ne: (870) 932-0900 

F : (870) 932-2553 

jp year@wpmfirm.com 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 17 of 18
Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Docum t 86 Filed 01/18/22 Page 8 of 8 

SEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

JA ES KINGMAN AND 

RE ECCA KINGMAN 

Lo i A. Etoch 

Bar , o. 89030 

Att rney for Plaintiffs 

ET 1CH LAW FIRM 

727 herry Street 

Hel a, Arkansas 72342 

(87 I 338-3591 

FA : (870) 338-7201 

E IL: louis@etochlaw.com 

CERTIFICAT OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney, hereby c ~ifies that on January 18, 2022, the foregoing 

document a true and correct copy was served all counsel of record by CM/ECF Electronic 

Notification, including the following: 

Louis A. Etoch 

Etoch Law Firm 

P.O. Box 100 

Helena, AR 72342 

Louis@etochlaw.com 

Isl. Ste hen Kenned 

J Stephen Kennedy 

Case 3:18-cv-00155-DPM Document 92 Filed 01/31/22 Page 18 of 18