This case arises from the in-custody death of Joseph Morton (“Morton”) at Vista Detention Facility (“VDF”). Morton was arrested for attempted robbery and booked at VDF on May 11, 2020, one day after release from a 5150 hold. Morton committed suicide six days later, on May 17. Plaintiffs allege medical care claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law theories claiming that Morton should have been designated as “high risk” for suicide and placed in a safety cell in Inmate Safety Program (ISP) housing.
Defendants County of San Diego, Hosanna Alto, and Janine Sparks (“County Defendants”) claimed that they did not violate Morton’s civil rights. Mental health clinicians (MHC) Hosanna Alto and Janine Sparks were accused of being deliberately indifferent to Morton’s suicide risk.
County Defendants have filed two Daubert motions: they sought to exclude certain opinions offered by Plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Jeffrey Metzner, and Dr. Kaycea Campbell.
Psychiatry Expert Witness
Jeffrey Metzner is a licensed medical doctor who has been engaged in clinical and forensic psychology since 1978. From 1980 to 1981, Metzner served as Chief of Psychiatry at Colorado State Penitentiary and he served as a consulting psychiatrist to the National Prison Project and the United States Department of Justice for 30 to 40 years, respectively. He has published numerous newsletters, books, book chapters, and peer reviewed journal articles, including on the topics of mental health and psychiatry in prisons. Between 1989 and 2022, he served as an expert in 178 cases.
Economics Expert Witness
Kaycea Campbell is an economist with a Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University, a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of Southern California, and a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the University of the West Indies. Campbell is a tenured economics professor at Pierce College and is also the Department Chair for a multidisciplinary Political Science, Economics, Administration of Justice, and Chicano Studies unit. She has worked as a professional economic researcher for about twenty (20) years during which time she has published articles on economic analyses associated with loss of income and calculated and researched issues such as the recovery of damages for lost profits, wrongful death, personal injury, and intellectual property damages. She has served as an economics expert in thirteen (13) cases since 2014.
Discussion by the Court
Motion to Exclude Metzner’s Opinions
1. Mental Health Clinician Standard of Care Opinions
Metzner opined that the care provided to Morton by various mental health and medical professionals at VDF fell below the standard of care. According to County Defendants, although Metzner is a licensed psychiatrist, he has no experience in supervising MHCs in a correctional setting and has not received formal training in the MHC standard of care.
The Court is not persuaded by this argument. Metzner has some thirty (30) years of experience in correctional psychiatry as well as extensive academic and research experience in correctional psychiatry and mental healthcare. Further, it is noteworthy that Metzner has served as a court-appointed expert in numerous cases.
2. Opinions re MHC Alto
County Defendants challenged Metzner’s specific opinions that MHC Alto: (1) did not obtain records regarding Morton’s recent hospitalization; (2) made the improper assumption that because he was released from the 5150 hold, there was no significant safety risk; and (3) that if MHC Alto had obtained the records from Morton’s recent hospitalization, “they would have figured out he was still suicidal.”
a. Records from Prior Hospitalization
Metzner opined that “[i]t was below the standard of correctional mental healthcare to not, at least, attempt to obtain information regarding Morton from the Alvarado Parkway Institute/BHS as part of the gateway assessment process” because “obtaining such information would have demonstrated that Morton was not a reliable historian and that he omitted significant factors leading to his very serious suicide attempt.”
The Court is satisfied that Metzner possesses the necessary qualifications and relevant experience to testify that the standard of care for QMHPs performing an ISP assessment would include requesting prior suicide-related hospitalization records.
b. Improper Assumption
County Defendants challenged Metzner’s opinion that MHC Alto’s assessment fell below the standard of care because she improperly assumed that following his 5150 hold release, he posed no significant safety risk.
According to County Defendants, MHC Alto did not rely on any assumptions in completing the ISP assessment, as confirmed by her deposition testimony.
The Court noted that there appears to be no opinion offered by Metzner about any assumptions MHC Alto made during her ISP assessment.
It was held that Metzner’s opinion in this respect is, by his own admission, only relevant if MHC Alto made an assumption regarding the 5150 hold release during her ISP assessment of Morton. As such, to the extent Plaintiffs put forth evidence that MHC Alto made such an assumption during the ISP assessment, Metzner may testify that, in his expert opinion, relying on such an assumption contributed to the reasons her care fell below the acceptable standard. But if Plaintiffs fail to offer evidence that MHC Alto relied on this assumption, or any assumption regarding Morton’s release from the 5150 hold, during her ISP assessment, Metzner cannot, and seemingly does not, offer an opinion in this respect.
c. Causation
County Defendants also take issue with Metzner’s opinion “that if Alto had obtained Morton’s Alvarado Parkway Institute (“API”) Records, it would have made a difference for Morton here because, according to Metzner, Morton’s medical history as provided by him to VDF medical staff was not consistent with information in the API records.”
The Court held that Plaintiffs can put forth evidence of the 5150 hold records and Metzner can opine that MHC Alto’s care was substandard for her failure to obtain these records. But ultimately, it is up to the jury to determine the import of these records and opinion testimony—for example, whether MHC Alto would have or should have done anything different, including whether she would have concluded Morton was suicidal, had she obtained and reviewed these records.
3. Opinions re MHC Sparks
County Defendants challenged Metzner’s opinion regarding MHC Sparks’ failure to complete Morton’s 24-hour ISP follow-up assessment. The Court held that Metzner’s opinion as to the reasoning behind why MHC Sparks did not perform the follow-up assessment appears to be based wholly on speculation and not any reliable methodology or specialized experience.
County Defendants also challenged two opinions Metzner offered during his deposition as beyond the scope of his report. First, Metzner opined that the nature of Morton’s phone conversations with girlfriend and mother were much more suicidal related to the conditions to confinement. He felt that a 24-hour assessment was necessary.
The Court agreed that this opinion appears to be beyond the scope of Metzner’s expert report. However, the Court is not persuaded that it should be excluded on this basis alone. In this case, County Defendants do not explain how they have been prejudiced by Metzer’s failure to include this opinion in his written report. In any event, the record is clear that his failure to do so was harmless because County Defendants had sufficient time and ability to question Metzner on this opinion when he raised it during his deposition.
County Defendants also challenged an opinion Metzner made on page 67 of his deposition. The record is devoid of page 67 of Metzner’s deposition transcript. Without the benefit of the evidence County Defendants seek to exclude, the Court cannot determine whether it is subject to exclusion.
4. Policies & Training
County Defendants asked the Court to exclude Metzner’s opinions on the sufficiency of the County’s suicide prevention policies and training.
Metzner further opined during his deposition that the the ISP “assessments were not very standardized and really varied depending on who the clinician was doing it.”
It should be noted that Metzner has ample experience in correctional mental healthcare including suicide prevention programs, policies, and training in the correctional setting. And here, Metzner identifies the policies he reviewed prior to coming to this conclusion.Thus, he adequately explains the basis for his opinion, and the Court is satisfied that his opinion is sufficiently reliable.
5. Opinions re Nurse Macanlalay
According to Metzner, “[t]he decision by Samantha Macanlalay RN on 5/11/2020 that a release of information for outside healthcare records was not indicated was problematic in the context of a very recent psychiatric hospitalization following a serious suicide attempt. Obtaining such information would have assisted in the suicide risk assessment process.”
County Defendants sought to exclude Metzner’s opinions about Nurse Macanlalay as irrelevant because she has since been dismissed from this lawsuit.
The Court agreed with County Defendants that Metzner’s opinion that Nurse Macanlalay’s assessment was “problematic” is not probative of any fact or issue in this case.
6. Summary of Records
Finally, County Defendants challenged Metzner’s summary of the record in his report. According to County Defendants, this evidence is impermissible because his summary paraphrases the evidence and is incomplete.
To the extent Metzner’s report includes an unadorned regurgitation of the facts, evidence, and/or record in this case, the Court held that his opinion and testimony is impermissible.
County Defendants also specifically challenged Metzner’s summary of the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (“CLERB”) report, State Auditor’s report, Critical Incident Review Board (“CIRB”) reports, and Disability Rights California (“DRC”) report.
As to the CLERB report summary, the Court agreed that Metzner’s evidence is subject to exclusion. Metzner quoted a portion of the report and comments that a statement contained therein is inaccurate based upon evidence elsewhere in the record. This opinion does not appear to be based on any expertise or particular experience, and a factfinder does not need any specialized knowledge to review two documents and determine whether they are inconsistent.
A review of Metzner’s summary of the State Auditor’s report, reveals no opinions or other commentary— Metzner simply summarizes the report and its findings. The Court held that it is impermissible.
Turning to the CIRB reports, Metzner indicated that he reviewed reports from January 2015 to August 2019 and opines on the adequacy of these reports and that there are “common themes” between the prior incidents and the issues he identifies as connected to Morton’s suicide. The Court is satisfied that, if relevant, this opinion is reliable and based on Metzner’s experience and qualifications.
Finally, as with his summary of the State Auditor’s report, Metzner merely restates part of the DRC report. The Court held that this evidence is subject to exclusion as unreliable and improper.
Motion to Exclude Campbell’s Opinions
To suggest that Morton’s estate is not a party to this litigation is inaccurate
Campell offers her opinion on Plaintiffs’ economic damages based upon Morton’s income projections, personal consumption, and household services as well as other costs attributed to his wrongful death.
First, County Defendants asserted that Campbell’s report estimates the value of Morton’s hypothetical future estate as the value of wrongful death damages, but that “Morton’s estate, should one exist, is not a Plaintiff in this litigation.”
To suggest that Morton’s estate is not a party to this litigation is inaccurate. The Court held that County Defendants appear to misapprehend the distinction between wrongful death claims and survival claims and their related damages. Damages for a wrongful death claim are personal to those who survive the decedent whereas damages for claims that survive death are personal to the decedent. For wrongful death claims, i.e., where heirs or survivors can recover their own damages based upon the death of their loved one, a Plaintiff may recover both economic and noneconomic damages.
A review of Campbell’s report reveals that her opinions fall squarely within the realm of permissible wrongful death damages evidence and that she does not improperly include damages particular to Plaintiffs as individuals. And because Plaintiffs press a wrongful death claim, this evidence is relevant assuming they can prove liability.
Campbell calculated Morton’s earning potential based upon various factors and variables
County Defendants asserted that Campbell’s opinions are unreliable. The Court disagreed. Campbell calculated Morton’s earning potential based upon various factors and variables.
She also considered his past history of work. And she sufficiently explained and supported the basis for her calculations. Her ultimate conclusion is that, based upon these variables, Plaintiffs’ damages range from $495,702.17 to $1,082,185.53 if Morton was single with no children, which he was at the time of his death. The Court is satisfied that Campbell’s opinion is based upon a reliable methodology and that County Defendants challenges goes to the weight of Campbell’s evidence, which they can attack on cross-examination.
Held
- The Court granted in part County Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert opinions and testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Metzner.
- The Court denied County Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert opinions and testimony of Dr. Kaycea Campbell.
Key Takeaway:
Metzner has ample experience in correctional mental healthcare including suicide prevention programs, policies, and training in the correctional setting but his opinion regarding MHC Sparks’ failure to complete Morton’s 24-hour ISP follow-up assessment appears to be based wholly on speculation and not any reliable methodology or specialized experience.
Also, Campbell arrived at Morton’s earning potential based upon various factors and variables after considering his past history of work. And she sufficiently explains and supports the basis for her calculations.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Morton Et Al V. County Of San Diego Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 3:21cv1428 |
| Court: | United States District Court, California Southern |
| Order Date: | December 16, 2024 |
Leave a Reply