Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-08875_de126> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08875_de126 RegisterActionDate "2017-10-15" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08875_de126 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Plaintiff has moved in limine in her motion number 18 to bar evidence of Ted Hernandez's liver disease, specifically cirrhosis. This evidence has obvious potential for unfair prejudice due to the likely association with alcohol abuse. Defendants argue the evidence is relevant to show Hernandez's reduced life expectancy. The only evidence that defendants offer connecting the liver disease to life expectancy is from the deposition they took of Dr. Scott Cotler, Hernandez's treating physician. But even that evidence is equivocal. Dr. Cotler testified, in response to questions by defense counsel that studies reflect that Hernandez's five-year survival probability "was about 90 percent" and his ten-year survival probability was "about 80 percent." Cotler Dep. at 41. This is not a terribly significant likelihood of reduced life expectancy. And Dr. Cotler also noted that Hernandez could have been considered for a liver transplant, which would have increased his life expectancy. Id. at 41-42. Thus the liver disease evidence has limited probative value even considering Dr. Cotler's testimony. The problem with Dr. Cotler's life expectancy opinions is that they are not within the normal scope of a treating physician's testimony, and defendants have not pointed to any Rule 26(a)(2)(A) disclosure indicating they would rely on Dr. Cotler's testimony regarding life expectancy, which if made would have put plaintiff on notice of the need to rebut it. The omission is neither justified nor harmless. For all of these reasons, the Court excludes Dr. Cotler's testimony regarding life expectancy and, accordingly, excludes testimony regarding Hernandez's liver disease. (The Court does not believe it would be appropriate to admit the liver disease evidence without evidence tying it to a relevant issue like life expectancy, as this would leave it to the jury to speculate regarding its impact.) Plaintiff's motion in limine 18 is therefore granted. The Court advises that it believes it has now ruled on all issues raised by the parties' motions in limine. If this is not the case, the parties should be prepared to advise the Court regarding any remaining open issues at the start of trial tomorrow morning. (mk) (Entered: 10/15/2017)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08875_de126 AdministrativeID "127" @default.