Opinion ID: 157046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Truthfulness of Ms. Lips's Answers

Text: 15 In concluding that American Community had established the first element of its rescission defense (that Ms. Lips made a false statement or concealed a material fact on her application), the district court cited Ms. Lips's responses to Questions 7A, 7B, 7I and 7K. As to Question 7A (concerning diseases, disorders, and abnormalities), the court said that she answered falsely because she did not disclose that she had been diagnosed as suffering from depression in 1987 by Dr. Weller and in 1993 by Dr. Ford, Aplt's App. at 113. As to question 7B (concerning treatment by physicians), it concluded that Ms. Lips had answered falsely because she had not reported that she had seen Drs. Weller and Brightwell in the previous ten years. As to question 7I (concerning symptoms for which she intended to seek treatment), the court said that Ms. Lips had answered falsely because she had not stated that she had been suffering from depression, had leg swelling, breast tenderness, and chronic fatigue. Id. Finally, as to Question 7K (concerning medications), the court said that Ms. Lips had answered falsely because she had not indicated that she had taken Lasix and Elavil within the previous five years. 16 Ms. Lips contends that the district court erred in concluding that her answers regarding her medical history on the initial application were not truthful. She begins by parsing question 7A, arguing that the district court erroneously changed the tense of the question. She notes that the district court quoted question 7A as stating whether, to the best of Applicant's knowledge and belief, the Applicant had any physical, dental related, mental, nervous, emotional or personality disease, disorder.... Aplt's App. at 107 (emphasis added). Ms. Lips observes that the question actually asks about present illnesses; it asks, [D]o you have any [diseases or disorders]. See id. at 173 (emphasis added). Thus, according to Ms. Lips, because she was not suffering from depression at the time she answered question 7A on the application and because (as she reported on the application) Dr. Ford had told her that she was only suffering from normal symptoms of menopause, her no answer was neither false nor misleading. 17 As to question 7I, Ms. Lips notes that it asks, Have you had any symptoms or condition for which you intend to seek medical advice or treatment? Id. Ms. Lips contends that merely because she had been advised to see another doctor does not establish that she actually intended to do so. Accordingly, she contends, her no answer to question 7I was also neither false nor misleading. See Aplt's Opening Br. at 9 ([B]eing advised to see another doctor and being referred to another doctor is not the same as the present intent to see any doctor.). 18 Ms. Lips takes a different approach to question 7B (regarding treatment by physicians over the previous ten years) and 7K (regarding medications taken over the last five years). As to these questions, Ms. Lips contends that the June 1995 letter from Mr. Miller to American Community raises controverted issues of material fact as to whether her answers were truthful. She cites Mr. Miller's explanation of her visit to Dr. Ford and Dr. Ford's conclusion that she was suffering normal effects of menopause. She emphasizes the statement in Mr. Miller's letter that she answered the questions truthfully. 19 In response to Ms. Lips's arguments, American Community contends that the district court properly found that she had not answered the questions truthfully. However, in addition to the omissions cited by the district court, American Community argues that Ms. Lips answered Question 7A falsely because she failed to disclose her serious longstanding medical problems which included chronic fatigue, depression, leg swelling, skin changes, spastic colitis, heart murmur, muscle and joint pain, blurred vision, loss of word finding and memory, and difficulty with gait and balance. Aple's Br. at 11. American Community appears to have taken this summary of Ms. Lips's symptoms from the February 1995 report of Dr. Aschenbrener, who evaluated Ms. Lips in preparation for implant removal surgery. See Aplt's App. at 32-38. 20 Upon review of Ms. Lips's application and the evidence in the record concerning her medical history, we agree with the district court as to questions 7B and 7K but not as to questions 7A and 7I. With regard question 7A, we agree with Ms. Lips that this question may reasonably be read as inquiring about present illnesses. In our view, it was not necessarily false or misleading for Ms. Lips to answer no to question 7A merely because she had been diagnosed with depression in the past. She may have reasonably believed that a past diagnosis of depression was no longer applicable, and American Community has not established that Ms. Lips was depressed when she completed the application in February 1994. Moreover, Ms. Lips has indicated that Dr. Ford had told her that she was suffering from normal symptoms of menopause, and she reported that diagnosis on her application. See id. at 74, 173. 21 Additionally, we do not agree with American Community that it has demonstrated that Ms. Lips answered Question 7A falsely by failing to disclose her serious longstanding medical problems. See Aple's Br. at 11. As we have noted, American Community's summary of these problems appears to be based on Dr. Aschenbrener's report, which was written in February 1995, well after Ms. Lips completed the American Community application in February 1994. The fact that Dr. Aschenbrener chronicled these symptoms in February 1995 does not establish as a matter of law that they all constituted disease[s], disorder[s], irregularit[ies] or abnormalit[ies], see Aplt's App. at 173, from which Ms. Lips knew that she was suffering in February 1994 and that she should have reported them to American Community in her application. Because Ms. Lips submitted an affidavit stating that, in February 1994, the only diagnosis that I had been given for all of my medical conditions was that of change of life as reflected in the medical history and records of ... Dr. Jack Ford, id. at 74, there is evidence in the record supporting her contention that she answered Question 7A truthfully. 22 We are similarly unpersuaded by the interpretation of Question 7I advanced by American Community. We agree with Ms. Lips that this question asks about her intent to seek treatment for symptoms and conditions; it does not directly ask about symptoms and conditions themselves. Accordingly, Ms. Lips's negative response may reasonably be read to indicate only that she did not intend to seek treatment. American Community has not established that this statement regarding her intent was false. 23 However, we do agree with the district court that Ms. Lips falsely answered questions 7B and 7K. It is uncontroverted that Ms. Lips did not mention two physicians who had treated her (Drs. Brightwell and Weller) and two medications that she had taken (Elavil and Lasix). Moreover, Ms. Lips has not provided an adequate explanation of her failure to provide this information. In deposition testimony, after acknowledging that she had seen Drs. Brightwell and Weller and that she had taken Lasix and Elavil, Ms. Lips stated that she had not listed Elavil because she had only taken it for a month or two and because she did not believe that she was depressed. See Aplt's App. at 163. She also explained that she had only seen Dr. Brightwell once. Neither explanation supports her contention that her responses to Questions 7B and 7K were truthful. These questions ask for information about all physicians and medications, and they do not excuse the applicant from providing information if she disagreed with the physician's diagnosis, if she was only treated by the physician on one occasion, or if she took the medication infrequently. 24 Moreover, we are not convinced that Mr. Miller's July 1995 letter raises controverted issues of material fact regarding the truthfulness of Ms. Lips's answers to Questions 7B and 7K. In the letter and in subsequent deposition testimony, Mr. Miller acknowledges that when he characterized Ms. Lips's answers as truthful, he had not reviewed her medical records. Thus, he did not know that Ms. Lips had seen Dr. Weller and Dr. Brightwell and that they had prescribed Elavil and Lasix. Accordingly, Mr. Miller's statements about Ms. Lips's truthfulness in answering these questions lack a proper foundation and are thus inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid 602 (A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.); United States v. Dotson, 799 F.2d 189, 192-93 (5th Cir.1986) (noting that [a]n opinion, or indeed any form of testimony, without the underlying facts, may be excluded if it amounts to no more than a conclusory observation and holding that testimony of law enforcement agents about witnesses' lack of truthfulness should not have been admitted absent some underlying basis to demonstrate that the opinions were more than bare assertions). Thus, the district court properly refused to consider Mr. Miller's letter in assessing the truthfulness of Ms. Lips's responses to questions 7B and 7K. 1 25 In summary, we conclude that there are controverted factual issues regarding the truthfulness of Ms. Lips's responses to questions 7A and 7I. However, we agree with the district court that the record establishes as a matter of law that Ms. Lips answered questions 7B and 7K falsely. 26