16-77 9

Brutt on v. Unit ed St ates, et. al.



### U N I T E D S TAT E S C OURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E C O

ND C I R CU I T 

## S UM M ARY O RD E R

R UL I NG S BY S U

M M A R Y OR D E R D O NO T H

A V E PR E CE D ENT I A

L E F FE C T . C I T

A T I O N TO A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R F I LE D ON OR AFT E R J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PE R M I T T E D A

N D I S GO

V E R NE D BY FE D E R

A L R ULE O F AP PE L L

A TE P R OCE D UR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L OC

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR D E R I N A D OCU M ENT F I LE D W I T H T H I S COUR T , A P

A R T Y M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE FE D E R A L AP PEN

D I X OR A

N E LE C T R O N I C DA T A B AS E ( W I T H T HE NO T

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ”). A P

A R T Y C I T I NG A S U

M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A CO PY O F I T O

N A NY P A R T Y NO T R

E PR E S ENT E D BY COU

N S E L . 1 At a state d term of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for the Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in the Ci ty of New York, 4 on th e 14 day of Ap ril, two thousa nd se vente en. th 5 6 PRESE NT: JON O . NEW MAN, 7 DENNI S JAC OBS, 8 Circu it Ju dges, 9 LEWIS A. K APLAN , * 10 Distr ict Judge. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X SHANE EN BR

UTTON , 13 Plain tiff- Appel lant, 14 15 16 -v.- 16-77 9 17 18 UNITE D STATES O F AME RICA, ARBE E 19 MANAGEMENT LTD. , and ANTONONIO 20 TAVAREZ, 21 Defen dants -Appe llant s. 22

Judg e Lew is A. Kapl an, o f the Unit ed St ates Distr ict * Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork, sitti ng by desig natio n. 11 UNITE D STATES P OSTAL SERV ICE a nd 2 EILLE N CUE VAS 3 Defen dants . 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 5 6 FOR A PPELLANT: RYAN LAWLO R, Ne w Yor k, Ne w York. 7 FOR A PPELL EE UN ITED 8 STATE S OF AMERI CA: PETERARON OFF, for J oon H . Kim , Actin g Uni ted S tates Atto rney for t he So uther n Dis trict of New Y ork ( Chris tophe r Con nolly , on th e bri ef). 9 FOR A PPELL EE ARBEE 10 MANAGEMENT LTD. and 11 ANTON IO TA

VAREZ : MARJO RIE E . BOR NES, Brook lyn, New Y ork. 12 13 Appea l fro m a j udgme nt of the Unite d Sta tes D istri ct 14 Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Fox, M.J.) . 15 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJUDGED 16 AND D ECREE D that the judgm ent o f the dist rict court be 17 AFFIR

MED . 18 Plain tiff Shane en Br utton , who was in a motor vehi cle 19 accid ent w ith a post al tr uck, appea ls fr om th e jud gment of 20 the U nitedStat es Di stric t Cou rt fo r the Sout hern Distr ict 21 of Ne w Yor k (Fo x, M. J.) d ismis sing, purs uant to Fe deral Rule 22 of Ci vil P roced ure 5 2(c), her suit under the Feder al To rt 23 Claim s Act (“FT CA”). We assum e the part ies’ famil iarit y 24 with the u nderl ying facts , the proc edura l his tory, and the 25 issue s pre sente d for revi ew. We af firm becau se th e dis trict 26 court prop erly limit ed th e tes timon y of Brutt on’s physi cian,

21 and a s a r esult Brut ton f ailedto e stabl ish t hat h er 2 injur ies w ere n ot ca used by an earl ier a ccide nt in volvi ng a 3 colla psed ceili ng or the exten t to which her previ ous 4 injur ies w ere a ggrav ated by th e lat er in jury. 5 On Oc tober 20, 2012, Brut ton w as a passe nger in a taxi 6 that colli ded w ith a Unit ed St ates Posta l Ser vice deliv ery 7 truck in U pper Manha ttan. App roxim ately a ye ar la ter, 8 Brutt on sa w Dr. Seba stian Latt uga, told him a bout the 9 accid ent, and c ompla ined of ne ck an d bac k pai n. H e 10 event ually oper ated on he r. S he su ed th e Uni ted S tates , the 11 taxi compa ny, a nd th e tax i dri ver; and t he di stric t cou rt 12 comme nced a ben ch tr ial. 13 New Y ork l aw ap plies to t he st ate t ort c laims agai nst 14 the t axi c ompan y anddriv er as well as t o the FTCAclai ms 15 again st th e Uni ted S tates , Lir anzo v. Un ited State s, 69 0 16 F.3d 78, 8 6 (2dCir. 2012 ). U nder New Y ork l aw, B rutto n 17 neede d to estab lish, “tha t the inju ry wa s cau sed b y the 18 accid ent, as op posedto o ther possi bilit ies e viden ced i n the 19 recor d.” Diaz v. An asco, 38 A .D.3d295, 296 (1st Dep’t . 20 2007) . Th ere w as an other poss ible cause of B rutto n’s b ack 21 and n eck i njuri es: a bout a mon th be fore the c ar ac ciden t, a 22 piece of b athro om ce iling fell on h er, a nd sh e wen t to the 23 emerg ency room compl ainin g of head, neck , andback pain . 24 Dr. L attug a’s f iles conta ined no re feren ces t o tha t 31 incid ent. On a moti on in limi ne, t he di stric t cou rt ru led 2 that Dr. L attug a cou ld on ly te stify abou t mat ters he le arned 3 durin g his trea tment of B rutto n, th us pr eclud ing h im fr om 4 testi fying as t o whe ther the f allin g cei ling couldhave been 5 a cau se of Brut ton’s inju ries. Aft er Dr . Lat tuga’ s cro ss6 exami natio n, th e dis trict cour t gra nted the d efend ants’ 7 motio n for judg ment on pa rtial find ings on th e iss ue of 8 causa tion, purs uant to Fe deral Rule of C ivil Proce dure 9 52(c) , andende d the tria l. 10 1. We re view the d istri ct co urt’s evid entia ry ru ling 11 on th e per missi ble s cope of Dr . Lat tuga’ s tes timon y for 12 abuse of d iscre tion. Uni ted S tates v. B irbal , 62 F.3d 456, 13 464 ( 2d Ci r. 19 95). To a void ambus h, Fe deral Rule of C ivil 14 Proce dure 26(a) (2)(B ) req uires a wi tness reta ined to pr ovide 15 exper t tes timon y to produ ce an “exp ert r eport ” giv ing, among 16 other thin gs, “ a com plete stat ement of a ll op inion s the 17 witne ss wi ll ex press and the b asis and r eason s for them .” 18 Dr. L attug a didnot produ ce an expe rt re port in th is ca se. 19 Howev er, t he no tes t o Rul e 26 speci fical ly co ntemp late that 20 a tre ating phys ician , suc h as Dr. L attug a, ma y tes tify 21 witho ut a writt en ex pert repor t. F ed. R . Civ . Pro . 26 22 Advis ory C ommit tee’s 1993 Note s. 23 The d istri ct co urt d id no t abu se it s dis creti on in 24 strik ing a bala nce. Dr. Lattu ga wa s per mitte d to testi fy in 41 his c apaci ty as a tr eatin g phy sicia n as to op inion s he 2 forme d in the c ourse of t reati ng Br utton ; but he w as no t 3 permi tted to te stify as a reta ined exper t con cerni ng 4 infor matio n he learn ed after trea ting Brutt on. Our f ellow 5 circu its, an un publi shed decis ion o f thi s cou rt, a nd 6 distr ict c ourts with in th is ci rcuit have stru ck th e sam e 7 balan ce ma ny ti mes. 1 8 The d istri ct co urt’s evid entia ry ru ling serve s a k ey 9 purpo se of Rule 26: provi ding notic e of the w itnes s’s 10 testi mony on a compl icate d top ic. Treat ment recor ds

For decis ions by ot her c ircui ts, s ee Me yers v. Na t'l 1 R.R. Passe nger Corp. (Amt rak), 619 F.3d 729, 734–3 5 (7t h Cir. 2010) (“a treat ing p hysic ian w ho is offe red t o pro vide exper t tes timon y as to th e cau se of the plain tiff' s inj ury, but w ho di d not make that dete rmina tion in th e cou rse o f provi ding treat ment, shou ld be deem ed to be o ne ‘r etain ed or speci ally emplo yed t o pro vide exper t tes timon y in the c ase,’ and t hus i s req uiredto s ubmit an e xpert repo rt in accor dance with Rule 26(a )(2). ”); G oodma n v. Stapl es Th e Offic e Sup ersto re, L LC, 6 44 F. 3d 81 7, 82 4-26 (9th Cir. 2011) (same ); Fi elden v. C SX Tr ansp. , Inc ., 48 2 F.3 d 866 , 869 -73 (6th Cir. 2007) , as amend ed on deni al of reh' g andreh' g en banc (July 2, 2 007) (same ). F or di stric t cou rts i n the circu it, s ee Go ss v. JLG Indus ., In c., N o. 10 -CV-5 8S, 2 012 WL 26 8034, at * 10 (W .D.N. Y. Ja n. 30 , 201 2) (“ a tre ating physi cian must confi ne hi mself to i nform ation acqu ired as a treat ing p hysic ian, and n ot gi ve an opin ion f ormul ated for trial . . . The key inqui ry is whet her a trea ting physi cian testi fies on th e bas is of his perso nal k nowle dge f rom consu ltati on, e xamin ation and treat ment of th e Pla intif f, and n ot fr om in forma tion acqui red f rom o utsid e sou rces. ”); Spenc er v. Int' l Sho ppes, Inc. , No. CV 0 6-263 7 AKT , 201 1 WL 43830 46, a t *3 (E.D. N.Y. Sept. 20, 2011) (sam e). And f or an unpub lishe d dec ision by t his C ourt, see In re Fosa max P rod. Liab. Liti g., 5 09 F. App' x 69, 74 ( 2d Ci r. 20 13). 51 produ ced i n dis cover y giv e the oppo sing side advan ce no tice 2 of a treat ing p hysic ian’s prop osed testi mony. An exper t 3 repor t ser ves t hat p urpos e in the c ase o f a r etain ed me dical 4 exper t. B rutto n pro ducedneit her m edica l rec ords nor a n 5 exper t rep ort o n the subj ect o f whe ther her i njury was 6 cause d by the t axi a ccide nt or the falli ng ce iling . Th e 7 distr ict c ourt was t heref ore w ell w ithin its discr etion in 8 preve nting Brut ton’s coun sel f rom a sking Dr. Lattu ga wh ether 9 her i njuri es co uld h ave b een c ausedby t he fa lling ceil ing. 10 2. The d istri ct co urt r uled again st Br utton on t he 11 issue of c ausat ion a fter Dr. L attug a’s t estim ony. In a 12 bench tria l, th e dis trict cour t may rule agai nst a part y on 13 a par ticul ar is sue a fter the p arty has b een f ully heardon 14 that issue . Fe d. R. Civ. Pro. 52(c ). W hen i t mak es su ch a 15 rulin g, we revi ew th e dis trict cour t’s f indin gs of fact for 16 clear erro r andits concl usion s of law d e nov o. S leepy 's 17 LLC v . Sel ect C omfor t Who lesal e Cor p., 7 79 F. 3d 19 1, 19 5 (2d 18 Cir. 2015) . 19 New Y ork l aw re quire s tha t a p laint iff a dduce expe rt 20 testi mony to ru le ou t alt ernat ive c auses of i njury that 21 appea r in the r ecord . Di az, 3 8 A.D .3d a t 296 . Th e cei ling 22 accid ent w as a compe ting poten tial cause of B rutto n’s n eck 23 and b ack i njuri es. Becau se th e dis trict cour t exe rcise d 24 discr etion to l imit Dr. L attug a’s t estim ony o n cau satio n, 61 the d octor was unabl e to rule out t hat c ompet ing c ause. The 2 distr ict c ourt’ s gra nt of judg ment pursu ant t o Rul e 52( c) 3 was t heref ore p roper . 4 Brutt on’s argum ents to th e con trary are unava iling . 5 First , Bru tton, a la ypers on, w ould have been unabl e to 6 provi de th e req uiredexpe rt te stimo ny ab out t he ca use o f her 7 injur y. S econd , the re is no e viden ce th at th e dis trict 8 court ’s co nclus ion r eliedon t he af fidav it of the 9 gover nment ’s me dical expe rt: t he di stric t cou rt ex plici tly 10 recog nizedit w ould be pr ematu re to do s o. A nd th ird, it 11 makes no s ense to ar gue t hat t he plain tiff had not b een 12 “full y hea rd” o n an issue beca use t he defen dants ’ expe rt wa s 13 yet t o tes tify as pa rt of the defen dants ’ cas e-in- chief . 14 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , andfind ing n o mer it in 15 Brutt on’s other argu ments , we hereb y AFFIR M the j udgme nt of 16 the d istri ct co urt. 17 18 19 FOR T HE CO URT: 20 CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK 21

7