Austin v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Background

This personal-injury case under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act was scheduled for trial. Plaintiff identified three treating doctors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) as witnesses who would provide expert opinion testimony. Defendant Metro-North moved in limine, meaning it asked the court before trial to exclude the testimony of all three doctors or, alternatively, to limit their testimony to medical opinions found in their exchanged treatment records.

Disclosure requirements

The court explained that Rule 26 distinguishes between experts retained or specially employed to testify and other expert witnesses. Retained experts generally must provide a detailed written report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). A witness who was not retained or specially employed must instead disclose the subject matter of the expected testimony and a summary of the facts and opinions under Rule 26(a)(2)(C).

Treating-physician testimony can include opinions formed during treatment, opinions relying on outside information, or testimony suggesting that the doctor was specially retained to provide expert testimony. The court treated Plaintiff’s disclosure as falling within the second category. Such a disclosure must provide enough specific information about the doctor’s expected facts and medical opinions to give the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to prepare for cross-examination and arrange for rebuttal expert testimony.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Plaintiff’s disclosures did not satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(C). The disclosures used the same language for all three doctors and contained generic boilerplate that could apply to nearly any doctor. They also included irrelevant references to psychological and psychiatric conditions that Plaintiff did not allege. The closest the disclosures came to identifying a specific opinion was the statement that each doctor would testify that Plaintiff suffered an ankle or foot injury on the job.

The court rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on a case involving a disclosure that was less detailed but sufficient to identify testimony about future medical needs and costs. The court stated that it was not excluding such testimony in this case when it was based on a doctor’s own treatment of Plaintiff.

Ruling

The court’s order granted in part and denied in part Metro-North’s motion. It did not preclude any of the three treating doctors from testifying. However, each doctor’s opinions are limited to diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and causation based solely on information acquired through that doctor’s treatment of Plaintiff. The doctors may not offer opinions based on another doctor’s opinions or on information learned through the litigation. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the motion at Dkt. 25.