A district judge in Missouri allowed a emergency room physician, who also happens to be a certified life care planner, to diagnose the Plaintiff’s injuries and attribute them to the vehicle accident at issue.
This matter arises from a January 2021 vehicular collision. A United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employee, driving a delivery truck, rear-ended a Plymouth Barracuda driven by Plaintiff Steven Golden. In December 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the United States of America. He alleged that he suffered “significant physical injuries” as a result of the collision.
On January 19, 2024, Defendant filed a motion seeking to strike the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Mitchell Mullins. Defendant contended the expert’s testimony must be stricken because his report fails to satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and his opinions fail to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Life Care Planning Expert Witness
Mitchell C. Mullins began his career in medicine in 1975 as a licensed practical nurse in Joplin, Missouri. He received his bachelor’s degree in Health Sciences from Tulsa University in 1983 and graduated from medical school at Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery in 1987. While in medical school, he joined the United States Army and served as an active reservist until 1992.
Dr. Mullins completed his residency in emergency medicine at Mount Clemens Medical Center in Mount Clemens Michigan in 1990. He is board certified in emergency medicine and worked full time as an emergency physician in the St. John’s (now Mercy) Hospital system from 1990 until 2011. In 2011, he transitioned to part-time status to acquire Missouri Independent Medical Evaluations and he has been actively performing independent medical evaluations since that time.
In 2013, Dr. Mullins became certified as a Life Care Planner through the University of Florida and the International Commission on Health Care Certification and has been actively authoring Life Care Plans since that time.
Discussion by the Court
Whether Mullins’ Report Satisfies the Rule 26 Requirements
Defendant contended that Mullins’ report did not contain the basis of, reasons for, and facts or data he considered in forming his opinions that (1) Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the January 2021 vehicle accident, and (2) Plaintiff would require future medical care. Defendant conceded that Mullins’ report listed the medical records he reviewed and the range of motion tests. However, Defendant contended that Mullins “did not indicate how these records and tests” led to his opinions regarding Plaintiff’s injuries and future care.
In his report, Mullins stated that his “opinions and diagnoses were based on the medical records provided to him” and “the history and physical personally completed by” him. He further represented that his opinions were based “upon the information reviewed as set forth in his report,” which included “medical records, photographs, history from the patient, physical examination, billing, and the resource materials as set forth in his report and life care plan.” According to Mullins, “medical professionals relied upon medical records, patient history, physical examination, and other resources . . . in forming medical opinions as part of the treatment, diagnosis, determining the cause of injuries, extent of injuries, and the future treatment of injuries.”
Based on its review of Mullins’ report, the Court found that the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requirements had been met. That is, Mullins’ report identified the information he considered in forming his opinions that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the vehicle accident at issue in this matter, and that Plaintiff would require future medical care.
Usefulness to Finder of Fact
Defendant maintained Mullins’ report and his trial testimony were not useful to the finder of fact. In support, Defendant stated Mullins’ report, which was rendered in January 2022, is two years old, has not been updated, and since that time, Plaintiff’s leg was amputated as result of an unrelated motorcycle accident. Defendant also argued Mullins’ life care plan was “irrelevant” because Plaintiff will not have surgery, which Mullins recommended.
Upon reviewing Mullins’ report, the Court finds his testimony may be helpful. Rule 702 is satisfied where expert testimony advances the trier of fact’s understanding to any degree.
The Court will consider Mullins’ opinions and testimony, the factual bases and reasons for his opinions, assess his credibility, and afford whatever weight to his opinions as it sees fit.
Dr. Mullins’ Qualifications
Defendant maintained Mullins was not qualified to render his opinions in this matter. More specifically, Defendant asserted Mullins, who was an emergency room physician, was not qualified to diagnose Plaintiff’s injuries, attribute an injury to particular event, or opine on future medical care.
Mullins may qualify as an expert based on his “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” According to Mullins’ curriculum vitae, he received his Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and surgery in 1987. Between 1987 and 2019, he practiced emergency medicine. Since 2011, Mullins has owned his own business performing independent medical evaluations and life care plans. And since 2012, Mullins has been a certified life care planner through the University of Florida.
Based on the information in Mullins’ curriculum vitae, the Court finds he is qualified to render medical opinions in this matter. The Eighth Circuit has observed “gaps in an expert witness’s qualifications or knowledge generally go to the weight of the witness’s testimony, not its admissibility.”
Reliable Principles and Methodology
Defendant moved to strike Mullins’ testimony because his report “did not bear indicia that it is a product of reliable principles and methodology nor reflect a reliable application of such to the facts of this case.”
More specifically, Defendant argued Mullins (1) “did not factor into his analysis the effect of Plaintiff’s injuries from an unrelated motorcycle accident,” (2) conducted the physical examination of Plaintiff remotely, (3) failed to account for improvement in Plaintiff’s condition, (4) did not provide any support for his conclusion that the January 2021 collision caused injury to Plaintiff’s left shoulder, (5) did not include an analysis of the effect of Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate his injuries or non-compliance with treatment, and (6) failed to address Plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries.
Although Defendant maintained that it questioned the reliability of the principles and methodologies used by Mullins, the examples it cited in support of its argument did not pertain to principles and methodologies.
Instead, Defendant’s examples relate to the factual bases (or lack thereof) in Mullins’ report. As discussed above, “the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility.” And Defendant will have the opportunity cross-examine Mullins on those issues.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s expert Mitchell Mullins’ testimony.
Key Takeaways:
- To determine whether a Rule 26 violation is justified or harmless, courts consider several factors including (1) prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, (2) the ability of the party to cure the prejudice, (3) the extent to which allowing the testimony would disrupt the trial, and (4) the moving party’s bad faith or willfulness. Based on its review of Mullins’ report, the Court found that the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requirements had been met.
- The Eighth Circuit has held “the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility.” If the factual basis or methodology utilized by an expert is disputed, the Court may exclude an expert when the expert’s opinion is “so fundamentally unsupported . . . it can offer no assistance to the jury.” Upon reviewing Mullins’ report, the Court finds his testimony may be helpful considering Rule 702 is satisfied where expert testimony advances the trier of fact’s understanding to any degree.
- With regard to reliability and relevancy determinations, courts may consider “whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested,” “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication,” “whether the theory or technique has a known or potential error rate and standards controlling the technique’s operation,” and “whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.” Defendant argued that it questioned the reliability of Mullins’ principles and methodologies. However, the examples provided by Defendant in support of this argument did not actually pertain to principles and methodologies but rather focused on the factual bases (or lack thereof) in Mullins’ report. As discussed above, “the factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Golden v. United States |
| Docket Number: | 6:22cv3312 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Missouri Western |
| Order Date: | April 23, 2024 |
Leave a Reply