Opinion ID: 712984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Dr. Garmon's and Dr. Gottschalk's Testimony

Text: 38 Dr. Goomar claims that the district court's rejection of Dr. Garmon's and Dr. Gottschalk's deposition testimony as unsupported speculation was erroneous. We need not determine whether the district court's exclusion of this testimony was erroneous because admissibility of the doctors' testimony would not change the result in the present case. 39 Dr. Goomar relied on the testimony of Dr. Gottschalk and Dr. Garmon to establish that he was disabled by schizophrenia in 1985-87, the period of his license revocation, or 1981-84, the period of his misconduct leading to his license revocation. However, neither doctor testified to facts or opinions which would establish a genuine issue of fact. 40 Dr. Gottschalk, when asked at his deposition whether he had an opinion about whether Dr. Goomar suffered from paranoid schizophrenia between 1985 and 1987, testified that I frankly don't have much information about that period of time. He first saw Dr. Goomar in 1993, and felt that he had to maintain a certain amount of skepticism about what Dr. Goomar told him. Although he initially gave the opinion that Dr. Goomar was disabled when he misbehaved sexually in the 1980's, he subsequently qualified this opinion away. He said it was based entirely on [Dr. Goomar's] subjective reports, which he had testified had to be taken skeptically, and that confirmation from nurses and secretaries who worked with Dr. Goomar at that time would be needed to get some external validation of the onset of his schizophrenic disorder. 41 Dr. Garmon initially opined that Dr. Goomar was probably disabled by schizophrenia, without which the sexual molestations would probably not have occurred, beginning in the 1970's. This was based on what Dr. and Mrs. Goomar had told him. But he too said his opinion depended entirely on what the Goomars told him. He went further and expressly refused to allow himself to be used as an expert witness. He testified that I would not serve as an expert witness in this case, because he thought the duty to render an objective opinion would conflict with his therapeutic alliance with his patient. 42 Dr. Gottschalk's express qualification away of his opinion, and statement that it would require confirmation by people who had worked with Dr. Goomar at the relevant time, and Dr. Garmon's express refusal to testify as an expert about Dr. Goomar's condition at any relevant time, left Dr. Goomar without any witness who would testify that he was disabled by schizophrenia at any time relevant to his case. 43 In the face of very substantial evidence that he was not disabled at any relevant time, Dr. Goomar failed to provide a witness who would provide facts or an opinion to the contrary. Dr. Goomar thus failed to provide cognizable proof that a genuine issue of material fact existed. Sentry and Centennial were therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(c). 44 The district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed. 45 AFFIRMED.