# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 29 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Tim m y A. Tay lo r; De bo rah Tay lo r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Co tt rel l, INC.; Aut o Han dl in g C or p.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 5

Fil ed : J ul y

29 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and SCHILTZ, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Tim m y A. Tay lo r ("Taylo r") an d Deb or ah Tay lo r br ou gh t th is act io n to reco ve r

da m ag es res ul ti ng fro m in juri es Tay lo r su st ai ne d in two in ci de nt s in vo lv in g a

Co tt rel l, Inc. ("Co tt rel l" ) tru ck tra il er. Upo n Cot tre ll 's m ot io n in li m in e, th e di st ric t

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a, si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.co ur t excl ud ed on e of Tay lo r's ex pe rt wit ne ss es

, fin di ng th e do ct or ha d ent ered in to

an im pe rm is si bl e co nt i n g e nt -fee ag reem en t whi ch co m pl et el y un de rm in ed an y

te st im on y he m ig ht of

fer. The d is tri ct co ur t th en fo un d Tay lo r la ck ed su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to crea te a tri ab le is su e on hi s ne ck an d ba ck in jury cl ai m s wit ho ut an ex pe rt

op in io n on da m ag es an d cau sa ti on

, en te red su m m ary jud gm en t on th os e cl ai m s in

fav or o f Co tt rel l, an d st ay ed th e rem ai ni ng cl ai m s. W e co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d i n e xc lu di ng Tay lo r's ex pe rt wi tn es s an d re ve rs e.

I

On Oct ob er 1 , 20 07 , Tay lo r was in jure d wh il e at te m

pt in g to se cu re a ve hi cl e

on a Co tt rel l ca r-h au li ng tra il er. He un de rwen t m ed ic al care fo r hi s i nju rie s, wh ic h

ev en tu al l y l e d h i m t o Dr. Ja m es M. Odo r fo r a su rg ic al co ns ul ta ti on

. Afte r an

ex am in at io n, Dr. Odo r ad vi se d Tay lo r th at th e be st ch an ce fo r im pr ov e men t w as

th ro ug h su rg ery. On Feb ru ary 21

, 20 08

, Dr. Odo r op erat ed on Tay lo r to co m pl et e a

two -le ve l cerv ic al fu si on

. Afte r an un su cces sf ul "t ria l pr og ram " to ret ur n to wor k an d

so m e fu rth er tre at m en t, on Nov em be r 6, 20 09

, Tay lo r ret ur ne d to wor k fu ll -ti m e

wit ho ut res tri ct io ns

.

On Ja nu ary 12

, 20 10

, Tay lo r was ag ai n in jure d whe n he fel l ap pr ox im at el y te n

feet fro m a Co tt rel l tra il er. He was ta ke n to th e em erg en cy ro om

, whe re he un de rwen t

x- r a ys a n d a CT sc an

. He was ev en tu al ly di sc ha rg ed ho m e wit h so m e pa in

m ed ic at io n. The sa m e m on th

, Tay lo r rep or te d to Dr. Odo r wit h ne ck an d ba ck pa in

.

Afte r te st in g, Dr. Odo r ob se rv ed se ve ral di sc pr ot ru si on s a n d a di sc de si ccat io n.

The se in juri es le d to an ot he r co m pl ex sp in a l su rg ery wit h Dr. Odo r in Sep te m be r

20 12 , th e co st of wh ic h e xc eed ed $4 50 ,00 0.

Mea nwh il e, Tay lo r co m

m e nc ed th is act io n in st at e co ur t on Apr il 3, 20 09

,

whi ch Co tt rel l ti m el y rem ov ed to fed eral co ur t ba se d on di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on

. Afte r

Tay lo r su ffer ed th e se co nd in jury an d un de rwen t m or e tre at m en t, he am en de d hi s

-2

-cl ai m s. W hi le th e li ti ga ti on sp an n e d o v e r s e ve ral y ears , t he rel ev an t ev en ts fo r th e

is su es cu rren tl y in di sp ut e on ap pe al oc cu rred in th e sp an of a few m on th s an d rel at e

to th e di st ric t co ur t's ex cl us io n of Tay lo r's tre at in g ph y si ci an an d ex pe rt wit ne ss (Dr.

Odo r) an d th e di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on so m e cl ai m s in fav or of

Co tt rel l.

On Aug us t 9, 20 13

, two week s be fo re tri al was sc he du le d to be gi n, Co tt rel l

mov ed fo r a tri al co nt in ua nc e, as se rti ng it ha d rece nt ly un co ve red co pi es o f

a g r e e ment s be twee n Tay lo r's co un se l an d Dr. Odo r whi ch ev id en ced a n

im pe rm is si bl e co nt in ge nt -fee ag reem en t. Afte r a he ari ng on Aug us t 1 4, t he di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n an d pe rm it te d ad di ti on al di sc ov ery. On Decem be r 27

, 20 13

,

C o t t r e l l fil ed a m ot io n to st rik e Dr. Odo r's te st im on y

, fo r sa nc ti on s rel at ed to th e

al l e g e d fai lu re to di sc lo se th e co nt in ge nt -fee ag reem en ts

, an d to di sm is s th e en ti re

cas e fo r frau d on th e co ur t. In it s or de r gr an ti ng Co tt rel l's m ot io n to st rik e, th e di st ric t

co ur t ex pl ai ne d i t w a s " di sm ay ed at th e ev en ts de ta il ed in [th e] Mo ti on " an d fo un d

t h e r e w a s a co nt in ge nc y ag reem en t— no t m erel y a li en on an y pr oc eed s fro m th e

li ti ga ti on —wh ic h u nd erm in ed Dr. Odo r's in te res t in th e cas e so m uc h t ha t t he "b es t

co ur se of act io n [was ] to ex cl ud e t h e t e s t i mo n y of Dr. Odo r as an ex pe rt wit ne ss ."

Tay lo r v. C ot tre ll , No. 4 :0 9- cv -0 05 36 -HEA, Dkt. No . 35 1, at 3-5 (E.D. Mo. Fe b. 4

,

20 14 ). Co tt rel l th en fil ed a m ot io n to ba r ev id en ce of Tay lo r's da m ag es ba se d on th e

te st im on y of Dr. Odo r or di sm is s th e ne ck an d lo w ba ck cl ai m s th at de pe nd ed on hi s

te st im on y

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e mo t i o n

, ba rri ng an y te st im on y fro m Dr.

Odo r an d di sm is si ng th e cl ai m s fo r Tay lo r's ne ck an d ba ck in juri es

. The di st ric t co ur t

th en gr a n t e d p e rm is si on to fil e an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C.

§ 12 92 (b ), whi ch th is Co ur t de ni ed on May 1

, 20 14

. Upo n Co tt rel l's m ot io n, th e

di st ric t co ur t th en se ve red th e cl ai m s rel at ed to th e ne ck a n d b ack in juri es

, en te red

jud gm en t on th os e cl ai m s, st ay ed th e cl ai m s rel at ed to Tay lo r's sh ou ld er in juri es

, an d

cert ifi ed th e jud gm en t fo r im m ed ia te ap pe al

.

-3

-II

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co u r t ' s e x cl us io n of ex pe rt te st im on y fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n, see Bro ok s v. Uni on Pac. R. Co

., 62 0 F.3d 89 6, 89 9 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ), an d

it s fin di ng s of f

a c t f o r c le ar erro r, se e Ja ck so n v. All st at e In s. Co

., 78 5 F.3 d 11 93

,

12 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Tay lo r arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

ex cl ud in g Dr. Odo r as an ex pe rt wit ne ss be cau se th ere was no ag reem en t fo r t h e

pa y m en t of hi s ex pe rt se rv ic es m ad e co nt in ge nt on th e ou tc om e of th e li ti ga ti on

, an d

ev en if th ere was

, it di d no t warra nt ex cl us io n. It is di ffi cu lt to de te rm in e th e pr eci se

in te res t th e di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed ex is te d in th is cas e an d why an y bi as as a res ul t of

su ch an in te res t c o ul d no t be ad eq ua te ly ad dr es se d wit h th e jury th ro ug h cro ss

ex am in at io n. Howev er, th e is su e is im m at eri al be cau se we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d re ga rd le ss of wh ic h i nt eres t i t b el ie ve d e xi st ed

.

The p a r ti es di sa gr ee on whe th er a pa y m en t fo r an ex pe rt wit ne ss 's se rv ic es

m ad e co nt in ge nt on th e ou tc om e of th e li ti ga ti on se rv es to di sq ua li fy th e wit ne ss

.

Thi s ap pe ars to b e a n is su e of fir st im pr es si on in th is Co ur t. Co ur ts in ot he r

juri sd ic ti on s ha ve di sa gr eed on whe th e r su ch a co nt in ge nt fin an ci al in te res t

au to m at ic al ly di sq ua li fie s, m ay se rv e to di sq ua li fy

, or can ne ve r al on e di sq ua li fy an

ex pe rt wit ne ss

. Co m

pa re St rau gh te r v. Raym on d, No. 08 -2 17 0 C AS (CWx), 20 11

W L 17 89 98 7, at *3 (C.D. Cal

. May 9, 20 11 ) ("Th e Co ur t fin ds th at th e be tt er co ur se

of act io n is to ex cl ud e th e te st im on y of ex pe rt wit ne ss es in ci vi l cas es who se

co m pe ns at io n is co nt in ge nt on th e ou tc om e of th e cas e."); Farm er v. Ram sa y

, 15 9 F.

S u p p. 2d 87 3, 88 3 (D. Md

. 20 01 ) (s tri ki ng ex pe rt' s rep or ts be cau se " w i t n e s s

co nt in ge nc y fee ag re em en ts af fir m at iv el y vi ol at e th e fu nd am en ta l po li cy of Mar y la nd

an d th e Uni te d St at es " (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ), aff'd on ot he r gr ou nd s, 43

F. App 'x 54 7, 55 1 n.5 (4 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (n ot de ci di ng whe th er it was pr op er to ex cl ud e

th e ex pe rt rep or t be cau se it was un ne ces sa ry ); Accru ed Fi n. Serv s., In c. v. Pri m e

Ret ai l, In c., No. CIV.J FM- 99 -2 57 3, 20 00 W L 97 68 00

, at *3 (D. Md

. Ju ne 19

, 20 00 )

("F in an ci al arra ng em en ts th at pr ov id e in cen ti ve s fo r th e fal si fic at io n or ex ag ge rat io n

-4

-of

tes ti m on y th reat en th e ve ry in te gr it y of th e jud ic ia l pr oc es s wh ic h d ep en ds up on

th e tru th fu ln es s of th e wit ne ss es ."); J & J Sn ack Fo od s, Co rp

. v. Eart hg rai ns Co

., 22 0

F. Su pp

. 2d 35 8, 36 7 n.8 (D.N.J. 20 02 ) ("A co nt in ge nt fee arra ng em en t wit h an ex pe rt

wit ne ss wou ld be un et hi cal

, an d wou ld un d e r mi n e o r de st ro y th e rel ia bi li ty of th e

su rv ey de si gn an d ex ecu ti on ."), wit h Tag at z v. Mar qu et te Uni v., 86 1 F.2 d 10 40

, 10 42

(7 th Ci r. 19 88 ) ("I t is un et hi ca l f o r a la wy er to em

pl oy an ex pe rt wit ne ss on a

co nt in ge nt -fee ba si s bu t it do es no t fo ll ow th at ev id en ce ob ta in ed in vi ol at io n of th e

ru le is in ad m is si bl e. The tri er of fact sh ou ld be ab le to di sc ou nt fo r s o ob vi ou s a

co nf li ct of in te res t. In an y ev en t, th ere was no ob jecti on to Dr. Tag at z's te st ifyin g as

an ex pe rt wit ne ss

, so we ne ed no t de lv e de ep er in to th is in tri gu in g su bjec t." (in te rn al

ci ta ti on s om it te d) ); Uni ve rs al Ath le ti c Sal es Co

. v. A m

. G y m

, Re cr ea ti on al & Ath le ti c

Equ ip

. Co rp

., 54 6 F.2 d 53 0, 53 9 (3 d Ci r. 19 76 ) ("[ I]t do es no t ne ces sa ril y fo ll ow th at

an y al le ge d pr of

es si on al m is co nd uc t on hi s pa rt wou ld in it se lf ren de r hi s te st im on y

. . . a nu ll it y ."); Mi lfa m II LP v. Am

. Co m m erci al Lin es

, LLC, No. 4: 05 -cv -0 03 0-

DFH-WG H, 20 0 6 WL 3 24 71 49

, at *2 (S.D. In d. Mar

. 30

, 20 06 ) ("Th e Sev en th

Ci rcu it ha s n ot he ld su ch arra ng em en ts il le ga l pe r se bu t has in st ead lef t t he tri er o f

fact to co ns id er th e cred ib il it y is su es ."); Vale nt in o v. Pro vi so Twp., No. 01 C 55 7,

20 03 W L 21 51 03 29

, at *3 (N.D. Ill

. Ju ne 26

, 20 03 ) ("Th us

, th e is su e of Hor st m an 's

co m pe ns at io n an d hi s b e l i efs ab ou t hi s co m pe ns at io n on ly affe ct Hor st m an 's

cred ib il it y as a wit ne ss

, no t th e ad m is si bi li ty of hi s rep or t an d te st im on y ."). Bec au se

we fin d th at no su ch co nt in ge nt i n t e r e s t ex is ts in th is cas e, we ne ed no t fu rth er

ad dr es s t he is su e.

It is no t cl ear fro m th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed

a co nt in ge nt -fee ag reem en t exi st ed fo r Dr. Odo r's ex pe rt wi tn es s s erv ic es or f or th e

pa y m en t of pa st m ed ic al se rv ic es pe rfo rm ed by Dr. Odo r. The di st ric t co ur t br oa dl y

refe ren ced "a co nt in ge nc y fee arra ng em en t wit h an ex pe rt w i t n es s," an d st at ed

"p ay m en t of th e ex pe rt," whi ch su gg es t it th ou gh t th e co nt in ge nc y was fo r th e ex pe rt

wit ne ss se rv ic es —n ot fo r th e pa y m en t of pr io r m ed ic al se rv ic es

. Tay lo r, Dkt

. No.

35 1, at 4. Add it io na ll y

, th e on ly au th or it y t h e di st ric t co ur t ci te d in su pp or t of

-5

-ex cl us io n was th e Res ta te m en t (Thi rd ) of th e Law Gov ern in g Lawy ers § 11 7, whi ch

pr oh ib it s a la wy er fro m of feri ng or pa

yi ng an exp er t wi tn es s co ns id erat io n co nt in ge nt

on th e ou tc om e of th e li ti ga ti on

. Id

. Thu s, it ap pe ars th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d Dr.

Odo r's co m

pe ns at io n fo r te st ifyin g in th is cas e was m ad e co nt in ge nt on th e ou tc om e

of th e li ti ga ti on

. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t ci te d no ev id en ce in th e reco rd to su pp or t

su ch a fin di ng an d ou r in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd ha s no t rev eal ed an y

. To th e

co nt rary, th e un di sp ut ed reco rd ev id en ce sh ows th at Dr. Odo r was pa id an ho ur ly rat e

fo r hi s de po si ti on te st im on y

. The refo re, t o t h e ex te nt th e di st ric t co ur t ba rred Dr.

Odo r fro m te st ifyin g be cau se pa y m en t fo r hi s ex pe rt wit ne ss s e r v i c e s was m ad e

co nt in ge nt on th e o ut co m e o f th e li ti ga ti on , it cle arl y erre d.

It is al so po ss ib le to read th e di st ric t co ur t's or de r as ex cl ud in g Dr. Odo r ba se d

on an ag reem en t fo r th e pa y m en t of th e pa st m ed ic al ex pe ns es

. In it s or de r ex cl ud in g

Dr. Odo r, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld "Pl ai nt iff 's co un se l en te red in to an ag reem en t th at Dr.

Odo r's of fi ce wou ld no t g e t p a id if Pl ai nt iff di d no t reco ve r an y th in g fro m th is

act io n." Id. at 1- 2. The di st ric t co ur t no te d it was "d is m ay ed at th e ev en ts de ta il ed

in Defen da nt 's Mo ti on " an d reject ed Tay lo r's arg um en t th at th e arra n g e men t was

m erel y "a li en on reco ve ry in th e ev en t Pl ai nt iff s do no t pa y Dr. Odo r's fee." Id

. at 4-

5. To th e ex te nt th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d an ag reem en t th at pa y m en t o f Ta y lo r's

m ed ic al bi ll s was co nt in ge nt on a reco ve ry th ro ug h th e li ti ga ti on

, it al so was in erro r.

The on ly ev id en ce th e pa rti es rel y on to sh ow Dr. Odo r ha d an y in te res t in th e cas e

rel at e to th ree "l et te rs of pr ot ect io n" an d th e te st im on y of San dy W eb er, th e bu si ne ss

m an ag er fo r Dr. Odo r's pr act ic e. Neit he r su pp or ts a fin di ng th at Tay lo r wou ld no t be

res po ns ib le fo r p ay in g hi s pa st m ed ic al ex pe ns es sh ou ld he fai l to reco ve r an y

pr oc eed s i n t hi s l it ig at io n.

The th ree "l et te rs of pr ot ect io n" ad dr es se d to Dr. Odo r, s ig ne d by Tay lo r's

va rio us a t t o r n ey s, rep res en te d th at Tay lo r wis he d to co nt in ue wit h th e tre at m en t

ad vi se d by Dr. Odo r ev en if it wou ld no t be co ve red by in su ran ce an d th at he wou ld

gu aran te e th e pa y m en t of th e med i c a l se rv ic es th ro ug h an y pr oc eed s fro m wor ke rs

-6

-co m

pe ns at io n or li ti ga ti on . Esse nt ia ll y , th es e le tt ers pro vi de d a pe rs on al gu aran te e

f o r th e pa y m en t of m ed ic al ex pe ns es an d si m pl y reaf fir m ed a li en on an y fu tu r e

reco ve ry by Taylor. The le tt ers th em se lv es fai l to es ta bl is h th at th e p ay m en t o f th e

m ed ic al se rv ic es was co nt in ge nt on a fav or ab le ou tc om e in th e li ti ga ti on

. St at ed

an ot he r way

, th ey do no t de m on st rat e Tay lo r wou ld no t be res po ns ib le fo r pa y in g th e

m ed ic al bi ll s s ho ul d h e fai l t o re co ve r an y th in g.

As to W eb er's te st im on y

, we be li ev e th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

st rik in g he r su pp le m en ta l affi da vi t su bm it te d aft er he r de po si ti on whi ch cl ari fie d an d

pl aced in to co nt ex t he r pr io r te st im on y

. W e do no t pe rm it a po st -d ep os it io n affi da vi t

to co nt rad ic t pr io r te st im on y in an at te m pt to crea te is su es of fact

. See, e.g

., Po po al ii

v. Co rr. Med

. Serv s., 51 2 F.3 d 4 8 8

, 4 9 8 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 08 ) ("We ha ve he ld th at '[i ]f

te st im on y un de r oa th

. . . can be ab an do n ed m an y m on th s la te r by th e fil in g of an

affi da vi t, pr ob ab ly no cas es wou ld be ap pr op ria te fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. A pa rty

sh ou ld no t be al lo wed to crea te is su es of cred ib il it y by co nt rad ic ti ng hi s own earl ie r

te st im on y .'" (q uo ti ng Cam fie ld Tire s, In c. v. Mi ch el in Tire Co rp

., 7 1 9 F

. 2d 13 61

,

13 65 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 )). Bu t an affi da vi t m ay be su bm it te d to c l a r i f y a m bi gu it ie s or

co nf us io n in de po si ti on te st im on y

. See Ci ty of St

. Jo se ph

, Mo

. v. Sw. Bel l Tel., 43 9

F.3 d 46 8, 47 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng a di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld no t st rik e an affi da vi t

whe re i t s eek s t o " ex pl ai n p or ti on s o f [t he ] de po si ti on tes ti m on y th at were u nc le ar"

or when th e "a ffi da vi t d oe s n ot act ua ll y co nt rad ic t [t he ] earl ie r te st im on y ").

Dur in g he r de po si ti on

, W eb er te st ifi ed it was st an da rd pr act ic e fo r he r to se ek

le tt ers of pr ot ect io n whe ne ve r a pa ti en t is pu rs ui ng li ti ga ti on or wor ke rs

co m pe ns at io n an d th at sh e ha d be en do in g so fo r te n to el ev en y ears

. W he n as ke d to

ex pl ai n th e p ur

po se of t he let te rs of p ro te ct io n, sh e pr ov id ed th at th ey gu aran te e "i f

th e pa ti en t win s, th at at to rn ey win s, th en th ey wil l pa y m e fro m th e se tt le m en t. If th ey

do n't win

, th ere's no m on ey ." Sh e al so m ad e so m e st at em en ts th at if Tay lo r fai le d to

reco ve r an y th in g th ro ug h wor ke rs co m pe ns at io n or lit iga tio n, D r. Odo r's of fic e wou ld

no t ge t pa id

. Howev er, at no ti m e di d sh e m ak e an y rep res en ta ti on th at Dr. Odo r ha d

-7

-in an y way fo rfei te d or waiv ed h i s r i g ht to se ek pa y m en t fro m Tay lo r. Afte r he r

de po si ti on

, W eb er su bm it te d a su pp le m en ta l affi da vi t to th e di st ric t co ur t, cl ari fy in g

an d p ut ti ng in to co nt ex t h er p rio r te st im on y by hig hl ig ht in g t he di ffer en ce b et ween

th e pr act ic al in ab i l i t y t o ge t pa id sh ou ld Tay lo r fai l to reco ve r an y th in g an d th e

affi rm at iv e act of fo rfei ti ng th e rig ht to se ek pa y m en t. Sh e ex pl ai ne d th at in he r pr io r

te st im on y sh e m ean t th at

, as a pr act ic al m at te r, sh ou ld Tay lo r fai l to reco ve r an y th in g,

Dr. Odo r's of

fic e wou ld be un ab le to co ll ect on th e am ou nt owe d— no t th at Dr. Odo r's

of fic e ha d g i v e n u p t h e rig ht to co ll ect

. W e do no t be li ev e W eb er's affi da vi t

co nt rad ic te d he r pr io r te st im on y

. Our in depe nde nt re vie w of he r de po si ti on te st im on y

fir m ly co nv in ces us th at th e se le ct iv e qu ot es of so m e of he r st at em en ts were ta ke n ou t

o f c o n t ex t by Co tt rel l an d th e di st ric t co ur t. In he r su pp le m en ta l affi da vi t, We b e r

so ug ht to m erel y cl ari fy he r pr ev io us ly un cl ear and am bi gu ou s tes ti m on y

an d p la ce

it in a co nt ex t ev id en t fro m th e de po si ti on tra ns cri pt

. Oth er th an W eb er's am bi gu ou s

de po si ti on te s ti m on y

, th ere is a co m pl et e la ck of ev id en ce in th e reco rd to ev en

su gg es t an y ag reem en t be twee n Dr. Odo r's of fic e an d Tay lo r th at Tay lo r wou ld on ly

be res po ns ib le fo r pa y in g hi s m ed ic al ex pe ns es sh ou ld he reco ve r an y pr oc eed s in th e

li ti ga ti on

. Acco rd in gl y

, we be li ev e th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in st rik in g

W eb er's affi da vi t. See Bak er v. Si lv er Oak Sen io r Liv in g Mg m t. Co

., L.C., 58 1 F.3 d

68 4, 69 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng di st ric t co ur t erre d in st rik in g an affi da vi t whe re it

was no t "d ire ct ly co nt rary to he r pr ev io us st at em en ts ," an d di d no t rai se on ly a "s ha m

is su e")

. W it h W eb er's te st im on y pr op erl y ta ke n in co nt ex t, th ere is s i mp l y no

2

ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at Tay lo r's pa y m en t fo r th e pa st m ed ic al se rv ic es was

co nt in ge nt on th e ou tc om e of th is li ti ga ti on

. To th e ex te nt th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th ere

ex is te d s uc h a n i nt eres t, i t al so cle arl y erred

.

W e al so no te th at it was th e ho sp it al —n ot Dr. Odo r's of fic e—wh ic h pl aced th e 2

$4 50 ,00 0 li en on an y li ti ga ti on pr oc eed s. Si nc e W eb er di d no t wor k fo r th e ho sp it al

bu t on ly Dr. Odo r's of

fic e, it is un cl ear ho w Tay lo r co ul d av oi d hi s ob li ga ti on s fo r th e

m ed ic al ex pe ns es by m erel y ag reei ng wit h Dr. Od or 's o ffi ce.

-8

-The on ly rem ai ni ng in te res t Dr. Odo r, hi m se lf, m ay h a v e ha d is ba se d on an

in crea se d li ke li ho od of rece iv in g pa ym e n t t h ro ug h th e pe rs on al gu aran te e an d

m ed ic al li en s. Bu t th e pr act ic e of of feri ng a pe rs on al gu aran te e fo r pa y m en t fro m

li ti ga ti on pr oc eed s or pl aci ng a li en on po te nt ia l li ti ga ti on pr oc eed s is no t un co m m on

. See, e.g

., Yor ga n v. Dur ki n, 71 5 N.W .2d 16 0, 16 5 (Wis. 20 06 ) (ex pl ai ni ng le tt ers of

pr ot ect io n are "a co m

m on pr act ic e b y whi ch la wy ers rep res en ti ng pe rs on al in jury

pl ai nt iff s en su re cl ie nt s wil l rece iv e ne ces sa ry m ed ic al tre at m en t, ev en if un ab le to

pa y un ti l th e cas e is co nc lu de d" (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ); Am

. Fam il y Mu t.

In s. Co

. v. W ard

, 77 4 S.W

. 2 d 1 3 5

, 1 3 7 (Mo

. 19 89 ) ("I f a ho sp it al m eet s cert ai n

req ui rem en ts an d fo ll ows cert ai n pr oc ed ur es it can ob ta in a li en on th e pe rs on al in jury

cl ai m s of it s pa ti en ts ."). W e d o n o t be li ev e th at su ch a co m m on in te res t ge ne ral ly

pr es en ts su ch a bi as in a wit ne ss to ov erco m e ou r ge ne ral ru le th at su ch is su es are to

be co ns id ered an d ev al ua te d by th e jury, no r ha ve we fo un d an y au th or it y ho ld in g th at

su ch an in te res t al on e is a ba si s fo r ex cl us io n. Cf. DiCa rlo v. Kell er Lad de rs

, In c.,

21 1 F.3 d 46 5, 46 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at b i a s o f an ex pe rt wit ne ss is th e

pr ov in ce of th e jury an d ca n u s ua ll y be ad dr es se d th ro ug h effe ct iv e cro ss

ex am in at io n) ; Dor se y v. Green e, 92 2 So

. 2d 12 1, 12 8 (Ala

. Ci v. App

. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng

it was le ga l erro r to di sr eg ard te st im on y of tre at in g ch iro pr act or ba se d on fin an ci al

in te res t of un pa id bi ll s) ; Kap la n v. Han ov er In s. Co

., No. 09 -ADMS- 10 01 0, 20 09 W L

30 69 00 4, at *2 (Mas s. Ap p. Di v. Se pt . 21 , 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at to ta l excl us io n of

tre at in g ch iro pr act or te st im on y was un ne ces sa ry be cau se he co ul d be cro ss -ex am in ed

reg ard in g h is "fi na nc ia l s ta ke in th e o ut co m e o f th e cas e")

.

In su m m ary, th e d is tri ct co ur t n ot on ly fail ed to art ic ul at e th e pr eci se in te res t

Dr. Odo r ha d in th e ou tc om e of th e li ti ga ti on bu t al so fai le d to ex pl ai n why an y su ch

in te res t o v e r c o mes th e ge ne ral ru le th at Dr. Odo r's bi as an d cred ib il it y sh ou ld be

-9

-res ol ve d by th e jury. The refo re, on th e reco rd be fo re us

, we fin d an in su ffi ci en t ba si s

to ex cl ud e Dr. Odo r fro m pro vi di ng an ex pe rt o pi ni on

. 3

III

Fo r th e r e a s o n s a bo ve , we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ex cl ud in g Dr. Odo r

fro m te st ifyin g as Tay lo r's ex pe rt wit ne s s

. Acco rd in gl y , we al so va cat e th e di st ric t

co ur t's or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t an d rem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs no t

in co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Co tt rel l as se rts th at th e di stri ct co ur t co uld have—

no t th at it mus t ha ve—

ba rred 3

Dr. Odo r fro m te st ifyin g fo r se ve ral ot he rs reas on s, in cl ud in g: (1 ) frau d on th e co ur t;

(2 ) fai lu re to co m

pl y wit h Ru le 26 in di sc lo si ng hi m as a ret ai ne d ex pe rt wit ne ss ; an d

(3 ) as a di sc ov ery sa nc ti on fo r fai li ng to pr od uc e th e le tt ers of pr ot ect io n. The di st ric t

co ur t reject ed al l th e s e g r o u n ds fo r ex cl us io n wit ho ut an y an al y si s an d ba rred Dr.

Odo r's te st im on y on ly ba se d on th e al le ge d co nt in ge nc y ag reem en t. W e wil l no t

im po se th e h ars h s an ct io n o f ex cl us io n fo r th es e ot he r al te rn at iv e rea so ns when th e

di st ric t co ur t d ecl in ed to do so

.

-1 0-