Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de209> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de209 RegisterActionDate "2019-06-02" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de209 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Plaintiff's motion in limine 18 seeks to exclude the testimony of Dr. Alfred Bowles, a medical doctor who also has an undergraduate engineering degree and works in, among other areas, the field of accident reconstruction and investigation of impact trauma. Plaintiff contends that Dr. Bowles's report does not provide any analytical connection between the forces involved in the collision at issue in this case and the force required to sustain the injuries claimed. The Court has reviewed Dr. Bowles's report. The Court notes, initially, as it indicated at the hearing on plaintiff's motion, that a good deal of Dr. Bowles's anticipated testimony (as set forth in his report) is unnecessarily repetitive of that expected of other defense witnesses and is thus excludable on that basis under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and the principle embodied in Local Rule Form 16.1.1, note 7. This includes his repetition of what is shown by medical records and testified about by other witnesses (see, e.g., Bowles Report, pages 9-10, 2nd through 8th bullet points). One aspect of Dr. Bowles's anticipated testimony that does not appear to be cumulative, at least on the record now before the Court, is his opinion regarding whether the collision was likely to have caused the types of injuries postulated by plaintiff's physician Dr. Senno (see Bowles Report, pages 9-11, 1st, 9th, and 10th bullet points). Dr. Bowles appears to have sufficient expertise to qualify him to give this opinion, and in the Court's view the opinion is sufficiently supported to be admissible. The matters cited in plaintiff's motion appear to be good cross-examination points, but they are not a basis to exclude Dr. Bowles's opinion on this issue. The Court denies plaintiff's motion 18 to this extent, though it reserves the question of cumulativeness, which plaintiff may renew prior to Dr. Bowles's testimony at trial if appropriate to do so. (mk) (Entered: 06/02/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de209 AdministrativeID "209" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-03621_de209 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.