Three former medical residents sued Southwestern Vermont Medical Center (SVMC) and William Sarchino, alleging negligence regarding the operation of x-ray machines. Subsequently, Plaintiff Shazad Buksh disclosed Dr. Phillip Beron, M.D., as an expert to support claims of inadequate training and lack of protective procedures during x-rays.
Defendants sought to exclude Beron’s report and opinions, citing two main objections:
- Incomplete Disclosure: The initial expert report failed to include a list of Beron’s previous expert opinions and cases from the preceding four years, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).
- Limiting Language: Beron’s report included the statement, “This report is not intended to be an exhaustive summary of all my conclusions or reference materials,” which Defendants argued made the report incomplete.
Radiation Oncology Expert Witness
Phillip Beron is a practicing physician licensed by the state of California and the state of Arizona. He is board-certified in therapeutic radiology/radiation oncology, which includes being tested and passing the sections on genitourinary malignancies, which includes bladder cancer.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff’s Opposition
In response, Plaintiff acknowledged the initial oversight regarding the list of prior expert opinions, but emphasized that the violation had been remedied. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the limiting language in Dr. Beron’s report was a standard reservation, allowing for flexibility in explaining reasoning and opinions without introducing new opinions.
Analysis
Procedural Non-Compliance
Initially, the Court noted that Defendants’ counsel did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 26(c), which require good-faith efforts to resolve disputes before filing motions.
Remediation of Disclosure Issue
However, the Court acknowledged that the initial failure to list prior opinions had been corrected, negating any prejudicial impact. Furthermore, the Court offered to extend the discovery schedule for Beron’s deposition if the defense requested it.
Interpretation of Limiting Language
Moreover, the Court accepted Plaintiff’s argument that the limiting language was a typical reservation, allowing for flexibility without implying new opinions. The Court stated that any attempt to introduce new opinions at trial could be prevented by court order.
Denial of Motion to Exclude
The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude Beron’s expert report and opinions, finding that the technical deficiencies did not warrant exclusion.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Phillip Beron, M.D.
Key Takeaway:
Indeed, this case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding expert witness disclosures. However, it also demonstrates the Court’s discretion in addressing technical deficiencies. Specifically, the Court prioritized substance over minor procedural errors, while simultaneously emphasizing the need for good-faith efforts to resolve disputes. Consequently, this decision underscores the Court’s role in ensuring fair and efficient litigation.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Buksh Et Al V. Dr. William Sarchino Dpm Foot And Ankle Surgeon Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:21cv190 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Vermont |
| Order Date: | February 27, 2025 |
Leave a Reply