Asencio v. Medina
- Sidney Stein
- 1:18-cv-00097
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Asencio v. Medina, Judge Stein denied defendants’ motion to preclude Dr. Baynes’s testimony, conditioned on disclosure of its foundation.
The ruling affects plaintiff, defendants Probation Officer Jose Medina and Probation Officer Garrett Hall, and Dr. Jason Baynes by allowing the addendum to be used subject to plaintiff’s disclosure of the opinions’ foundation.
What happened
In Asencio v. Medina, defendants asked the court to prevent plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Jason Baynes, from testifying at trial about an evaluation addendum. The addendum stated that plaintiff’s disability was permanent and that certain surgeries and therapy would cost more than $500,000.
The court explained that treating physicians generally do not have to submit the same written expert reports required of some other experts. They must still provide a reliable method and proper foundation for opinions about the cost of future medical treatment.
Because the addendum did not explain the basis for Dr. Baynes’s cost estimate, the court denied the motion on the condition that plaintiff disclose the foundation for the opinions in the document. Judge Sidney H. Stein issued the order.
The detailed version
- Asencio v. Medina · No. 1:18-cv-00097
- Sidney Stein
- June 15, 2022
Background
Defendants moved to preclude, or prevent, plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Jason Baynes, from testifying at trial about his Initial Evaluation Addendum. The one-paragraph addendum stated Dr. Baynes’s opinions that plaintiff’s disability was permanent and that certain surgeries and therapy would cost, in his estimation, more than $500,000.
Legal standard
The court stated that Dr. Baynes, as a treating physician, was not subject to the written-report requirements that apply to certain expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). The court nevertheless explained that a treating physician must use a scientifically reliable method and provide a proper foundation for opinions about the cost of future medical treatment.
Ruling
The court found that the addendum did not provide a basis for Dr. Baynes’s estimate that plaintiff’s future medical treatment would cost more than $500,000. It therefore denied defendants’ motion to preclude the Initial Evaluation Addendum on the condition that plaintiff disclose the foundation underlying the opinions stated in that document. Judge Sidney H. Stein signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.