IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

EDWARD HOLMES, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 02 C 7266 

 v. ) 

 ) Judge Brown 

DR. KUL SOOD, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD MOTION IN LIMINE

TO BAR REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE

 Defendant, Dr. Kul Sood, by his attorneys Charysh & Schroeder, Ltd., for his 

response to plaintiff’s third motion in limine to bar reference to prior substance abuse 

states: 

 Plaintiff’s third motion in limine seeks to bar mention of plaintiff’s long history of 

substance abuse. Plaintiff bases his motion on the premise that the defendant seeks to 

introduce his substance abuse merely to prejudice him in front of the jury. This is not 

true, as plaintiff’s long and continued substance abuse does have substantial probative 

value in this case. 

 Plaintiff’s experts, as well as defendant’s expert have testified that plaintiff’s 

gastrointestinal problems were caused, at least in part, by plaintiff’s narcotic and alcohol 

use/abuse. It is uncontroverted that plaintiff was a long time heroin addict. It is also 

uncontradicted that plaintiff is a chronic user of laxatives which also can cause or 

contribute to chronic colon disease such as what plaintiff suffered from prior to being 

treated by Dr. Sood. 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 109 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:775
 During Dr. Franklin’s testimony (one of plaintiff’s experts) he indicated that when 

plaintiff was hospitalized in July, immediately prior to this incarceration, plaintiff 

suffered from chronic colon and intestinal disease including chronic intestinal ileus. Dr. 

Franklin further testified that narcotic use was an aggravating factor. (Dr. Franklin’s dep. 

p. 57, attached as Exhibit A) Dr. Franklin further testified as follows: 

Q: The subsequent disability that you're describing, can you tell me to a 

reasonable degree of medical certainty that he would not have had it 

absent the conduct of Dr. Sood at the prison? 

A: It's impossible to answer that question. 

Q: So the answer is you can't say that, correct? 

A: I mean he-I have to recognize that he did have an underlying intestinal 

condition and that the events that occurred in the prison if they hadn't 

occurred in the prison might have occurred some other time in his life 

and he still might have progressed to the point that he needed surgery. 

Q: So you can't say definitively to a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty that but for what Dr. Sood did, he experienced the problems 

that you're talking about, correct? 

A: That's correct. (Exhibit B, page 129, lines 6-23) 

 

 Under questioning from plaintiff’s counsel, Dr. Franklin further testified: 

Q: Mr. Charysh asked you sort of but for question relating to that Mr. 

Holmes may have conceivably, even if none of this had ever 

happened, perhaps under some set of circumstances we can imagine he 

may have had to have similar surgery. 

 

A: It is conceivable that the chain of events that evolved in his case might 

have occurred even if he had never been incarcerated and may have 

occurred as a subsequent event as part of the natural courses of the 

disease. (See exhibit B, page 157, lines 4-19). 

 

 Subsequent to the deposition of defendant’s expert, Dr. Clark, plaintiff served 

upon defendant a rebuttal opinion from Dr. Franklin indicating that in his opinion “There 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 109 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:776
is a reasonable chance that had he been treated earlier for the colonic pseudo-obstruction, 

surgical intervention may not have been inevitable or necessary.” (See Exhibit C) 

 It is necessary to delve into plaintiff’s long and sustained history of narcotics 

abuse because it shows the jury, not only the underlying cause of the chronic condition, 

but the independent likelihood and inevitability of the surgery allegedly resulting solely 

from the short care provided by Dr. Sood, regardless of anything done or not done by Dr. 

Sood. Evidence of plaintiff’s long medical history of continued treatment for this chronic 

intestinal/colonic problem which was being caused or exacerbated by his narcotic abuse 

is necessary to properly impeach Dr. Franklin’s seemingly contradictory opinions as to 

the likelihood of plaintiff needing this surgery and causally linking it to the short 

treatment by Dr. Sood. 

 Plaintiff may claim that this argument can be advanced through testimony that he 

was on prescription narcotics for his chronic pain for many years. This, however, would 

leave an incorrect impression with the jury. This is not a case where plaintiff only took 

prescription narcotic pain medication, under a doctor’s careful watch. In addition to 

taking any properly prescribed medication, plaintiff was taking additional narcotics in the 

form of cocaine and heroin. As such plaintiff’s prior lengthy substance abuse is 

probative to impeach plaintiff’s expert’s opinions concerning causation of the plaintiff’s 

surgery, and his subsequent disability. Plaintiff seeks to blame both on Dr. Sood. 

 Furthermore, plaintiff’s substance abuse should also be admissible to impeach his 

credibility. During plaintiff’s deposition he admitted that he lied in court concerning his 

substance abuse. During his sentencing for the charge which incarcerated him at the 

WCADF he told Judge Rozak that he had used cocaine about two days prior to the 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 109 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:777
September 13, 2001 hearing. (See p. 6, September 13, 2001 transcript attached as Exhibit 

B) 

 During his deposition plaintiff admitted that he not been truthful in the following 

exchange: 

 Q: Do you recall telling Judge Rozak on September 13 that 

you had taken cocaine just two days before? 

 A: I told him that, yes, because I walked in there and I 

expected a deal then. I didn’t know what to say. They had me in a bind. 

 Q: Was that the truth, or that wasn’t the truth? 

 A: That wasn’t the truth. 

 (Plaintiff’s dep. p. 97, attached hereto as Exhibit D) 

 Plaintiff’s prior substance abuse should therefore, also be admitted to impeach 

plaintiff on this false statement. 

 WHEREFORE, defendant, Dr. Kul Sood respectfully requests this Honorable 

Court deny plaintiff’s Third Motion in Limine, and grant such other further relief as the 

court deems just and proper. 

 CHARYSH & SCHROEDER, LTD. 

 

 _/s/ Michael J. Charysh___________

Michael J. Charysh (ARDC 6187455) 

CHARYSH & SCHROEDER, LTD. 

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1300 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 372-8338 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 109 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:778
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned attorney certifies that he served a copy of the foregoing documents 

on all attorneys of record via electronic notification to EFC participants, and by U.S. Mail to 

non-EFC participants at their respective addresses by depositing copies of same with proper 

postage prepaid in the U.S. Mail at 33 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois at or before 

5:00 p.m. on May 1, 2006. 

 

 By: /s/ Michael J. Charysh__

 Attorney for Defendant 

SERVICE LIST: 

Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 109 Filed: 05/01/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:779