Wiley v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

Background

Darrell Wiley and Unum Life Insurance Company of America filed several motions in limine before trial. A motion in limine asks the court to decide in advance whether particular evidence or testimony may be presented to the jury.

Unum’s motions

The court limited Dr. Michael Moskowitz’s testimony to opinions about how Wiley’s 1996 injuries caused his disability when those opinions arose from psychiatry or pain management, his areas of expertise. Moskowitz could not testify about the mortgage industry, claims management, or other subjects outside his medical expertise. The court stated that more specific objections could be addressed at trial.

Chiropractors Thomas Forest and Greg Call, and orthopedic surgeon Ronald Wyatt, could testify about their treatment of Wiley and the reasons for the treatment. The court stated that objections would be sustained if they gave opinions beyond those subjects, including opinions outside their expertise.

The parties agreed that evidence concerning Unum’s alleged bad faith, attorney’s fees and costs, and damages other than those available under the policy was not for the jury. The court agreed and excluded that evidence. The opinion also states that Wiley’s covenant-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing claim had been dismissed.

Wiley’s motions

The court denied Wiley’s motion to exclude Dr. Trent Holmberg’s testimony. It found no clear violation of the parties’ agreement concerning standardized testing or survey instruments and noted that Wiley had consented to Holmberg’s interview with Wiley’s wife. The court also concluded that Wiley had not shown a concrete basis for excluding Holmberg’s diagnostic opinions under Daubert, the rule governing the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony. Wiley could renew an objection at trial if Holmberg failed to provide an adequate foundation.

The court denied Wiley’s motion to exclude Dr. Alan Shonkoff’s testimony. Shonkoff had evaluated Wiley in 1998, and Wiley had possessed his report before this lawsuit. The court treated concerns about missing underlying materials as matters for cross-examination rather than grounds for exclusion at that stage. The court also rejected Wiley’s argument that Shonkoff needed to provide a declaration under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted Wiley’s motion concerning Joseph Antaki, John Szlyk, and Lloyd Price. Although those witnesses reviewed Wiley’s file for Unum, they lacked firsthand knowledge of the underlying facts. The court classified them as experts who were required to submit expert reports. Because they had not filed the required expert declarations, the court excluded their testimony on the results of their reviews.

The court denied Wiley’s motion to exclude Dr. Steven Feinberg. It found Feinberg sufficiently matched to Moskowitz because both had been retained to testify about the cause of Wiley’s disability. It also found that Feinberg’s pain-medicine testimony was not cumulative of Holmberg’s testimony about a mental examination.

The court largely denied Wiley’s motion concerning references to opiates or cannabis. Those substances could be discussed as part of Wiley’s treatment, but Unum could not make excessive references to them or use their mere use to attack Wiley’s credibility. The court granted Wiley’s motion to exclude testimony that he had received a Social Security disability award. It found that the award was irrelevant and stated that the jury, rather than an administrative judge whose opinion had not been subject to cross-examination, would determine the cause of Wiley’s disability based on the trial evidence.

The court allowed evidence about Wiley’s assets or earnings for the limited purpose of addressing whether his disability resulted from the 1996 accident, including how successfully he worked afterward. The evidence could also be used to rebut evidence of financial hardship if Wiley introduced such evidence. Unum did not oppose Wiley’s request concerning references to his disability insurance or his lawsuit about that policy and stated that it would not raise that evidence.

Disposition

Judge William H. Orrick resolved the motions in limine by imposing limits on expert testimony, excluding certain categories of evidence, denying several exclusion requests, and granting Wiley’s motion regarding the three file-reviewing experts and his motion regarding the Social Security disability award. The supplied opinion text does not state an express disposition verb for Wiley’s motion concerning assets or earnings or for the unopposed motion concerning disability insurance and the related lawsuit.