Song v. Turtil

Background

Jehyung Thomas Song sued Lawrence C. Turtil, his former psychiatrist, asserting medical malpractice, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. Song alleged that Turtil improperly prescribed and urged him to take Risperidone, improperly communicated with Song’s then wife, and failed to provide appropriate care after Song stopped being Turtil’s patient. Song alleged that he suffered depression, anxiety, lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering.

The scheduling order required Song to serve his expert disclosures by March 7, 2022. Song initially stated that he would not submit a medical expert disclosure or have a medical expert testify on his behalf. He later asked to revise the scheduling order so he could submit a report that he had written himself. He described the proposed testimony as addressing standards of psychiatric care, medication prescriptions, the doctor-patient relationship, disclosure of protected health information, and related subjects.

Legal standards

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows qualified experts to give opinions when their specialized knowledge would help the factfinder, their opinions are based on sufficient information, and their methods and application of those methods are reliable.

The court explained that the first question in evaluating an expert is whether the witness is qualified. A witness may qualify through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, but the witness’s qualifications must relate to the subject of the proposed testimony. The qualification requirement is interpreted broadly, but it still requires some specialized knowledge based on training or experience.

Analysis

The court concluded that Song was not qualified to testify as an expert about the standard of psychiatric care, including the proper use of psychiatric medication. Song acknowledged that he was not a doctor or psychologist. His education was in philosophy of religion, sociology, public administration, and finance, and his work experience was as a credit analyst. Although he had received psychiatric services for 17 years and believed that experience gave him specialized knowledge, the court held that being a patient was not enough to qualify someone as an expert in a medical-malpractice case.

The court distinguished a case involving a physician whose credentials were challenged as insufficiently specialized. Here, the court found that the problem was not merely weak credentials, but the complete absence of medical, psychopharmacological, or closely related credentials. Because Song failed the threshold qualification requirement, the court did not need to decide whether his proposed opinions were relevant, reliable, or helpful to the factfinder.

Disposition

The court held that Song’s self-authored report could not be used to substantiate his claims and that testimony based on the report would be inadmissible. It therefore found no good cause to extend the deadline for Song’s expert disclosure and DENIED his application to revise the case management plan and extend that deadline. The court separately extended the deadline for completing expert depositions to May 6, 2022. The decision did not resolve the merits of Song’s underlying claims.