Opinion ID: 3063897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appointment of an Expert Witness

Text: German also argues that his nerve and spine conditions did not manifest themselves in ways that were obvious and ascertainable to a lay person, and thus in order to prove the alleged deterioration in his arm, bones, and health, he required a medical expert witness. Additionally, while the district court found that German’s condition might arguably qualify as a serious medical need, a medical expert 10 witness was necessary to solidify such a determination, especially since German lacked medical or scientific evidence to demonstrate his alleged injury to a jury or explain the medical consequences of the defendants’ failure to provide treatment in a timely manner. Moreover, both defendants filed pleadings noting that German did not have an expert witness to substantiate his medical claims and expressing their belief that expert testimony would be necessary in this case. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of an expert witness for an abuse of discretion. Bass, 170 F.3d at 1319. Federal Rule of Evidence 706 “provides the court with discretionary power to appoint an expert witness either on the court’s own motion or the motion of a party.” Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir. 1996); Fed.R.Evid. 706(a). Moreover, the district court’s discretion on whether or not to appoint an expert should be exercised and reflected in a reasoned ruling. Steele, 87 F.3d 1266 at 1271. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying German’s motion for the appointment of an expert witness. German asserted that he needed an expert witness because his case involved serious medical conclusions. However, in her motion for summary judgment, Askew did not assert that German did not have a serious medical need or that she was not deliberately indifferent to that need. She asserted that she did not have the power to overrule 11 Dr. Schocoff’s determination not to pursue further testing. Conversely, GEO argued in its motion for summary judgment that it did not have a custom or policy of denying medical care or providing inadequate health care to inmates. However, German failed to allege that Assistant Warden Clark’s action in signing the allegedly fraudulent grievance response was part of a custom or policy of GEO’s. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying German’s motion to appoint an expert witness because medical conclusions were not at issue in Askew’s or GEO’s being granted summary judgment. Nevertheless, on remand, the appointment of a medical expert may be warranted because the district court will need to determine whether Askew was deliberately indifferent to German’s serious medical need. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 12