Pro se Plaintiff Michael Scriven brought this action against Defendants VitalCore Health Strategies, LLC (incorrectly named as “Vital Core LLC”), Jennifer Ehrlich, Tracy Staley, Dr. Harold Stopp, Ryan Fickle, and Dr. John Tomarchio (incorrectly named as “Demarco”) for alleged violations of his constitutional rights while in custody at the Sedgwick County Jail (“SCJ”). Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when they denied him narcotic pain medication for his chronic health conditions.
During discovery, Defendants retained Dr. Thomas D. Fowlkes to provide an opinion regarding the medical necessity of the care and treatment requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought to declare Defendants’ expert report inadmissible.
Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness
Thomas DeBow Fowlkes, M.D. is a correctional medicine physician with approximately 25 years of experience in delivering primary care in a correctional setting. He is board certified in both Emergency Medicine and Addiction Medicine. He is also a Certified Correctional Healthcare Professional-Physician (“CCHP-P”).
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff asserted eight arguments as to why the Court should declare Fowlkes’ expert report inadmissible.
Qualification
First, Plaintiff argued that Fowlkes is not qualified because he is not an “orthopedic,” “nerve specialist,” or “pain management specialist.” However, Fowlkes is not opining on the type of pain medication suitable for Plaintiff’s chronic pain. Instead, he is opining on the appropriate standard of care for managing chronic pain in a correctional setting. Because Fowlkes’ expertise is directly relevant to the issue at hand, the Court found that Fowlkes is qualified to render an opinion in this case.
Methodology
Second, Plaintiff argued that Fowlkes’ method is not a sound medical opinion because the x-ray images he looked at are covered in gray and white static. Although these images may be low quality, Fowlkes reviewed the entire medical record, including the official radiology reports associated with the x-ray images. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Fowlkes’ methodology is not flawed, and the Court will not declare it inadmissible on this basis.
Third-Party Hearsay Statements
Third, Plaintiff argued that Fowlkes improperly relied upon third-party hearsay statements in Plaintiff’s medical records when crafting his expert report. However, an expert’s reliance on hearsay does not necessarily render the expert’s opinion unreliable.
Substance Abuse Disorder
Fourth, Plaintiff claimed that Fowlkes improperly diagnosed Plaintiff with a substance abuse disorder. This argument misrepresents Fowlkes’ report. Fowlkes did not make a new diagnosis regarding substance abuse. Instead, he relied on Plaintiff’s own reported history and prior medical records to document that Plaintiff had a substance abuse disorder in the past. Fowlkes merely opined on Plaintiff’s prior drug addiction.
VitalCore Policy
In his fifth argument, Plaintiff asserted that Fowlkes falsely denied the existence of a VitalCore policy in his report. Plaintiff asserted that the medical records showed that Defendant Staley used a VitalCore policy to deny Plaintiff’s medication.
In response, Defendants argued that Fowlkes did not deny the existence of a VitalCore policy, instead he opined that he saw no VitalCore policy or procedure that precluded the use of opioid medication. This is a factual dispute between the parties. Plaintiff’s disagreement with Fowlkes’ conclusion in his expert report goes to the weight of Fowlkes’ testimony. It is not grounds for exclusion.
Factual Statements
In his sixth and seventh arguments, Plaintiff disagreed with two different factual statements in Fowlkes’ report. In his sixth argument, Plaintiff took issue with Fowlkes’ statement that Plaintiff fractured his hand after hitting a door. And in his seventh argument, Plaintiff argued that Fowlkes should have provided the name of the physicians who previously terminated Plaintiff as patient due to his behavior and demeanor. These are both tangential factual issues that are irrelevant to the issues before the Court. Plaintiff’s disagreement with Fowlkes’ statements did not render Fowlkes’ opinion on the central issues of the case unreliable.
Falsified Medical Records
In Plaintiff’s final argument, he claimed that Fowlkes relied on medical records that were falsified by Defendant Staley.
In any event, criticisms regarding the medical providers or the databases on which the expert relies go to the weight, and not the admissibility of the expert’s opinion. Accordingly, this argument is not an adequate basis under which the Court may declare Fowlkes’ report inadmissible.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to declare Thomas Fowlkes’ expert report inadmissible.
Key Takeaway
Overall, the Plaintiff failed to present a credible challenge to Fowlkes’ qualifications or methodology. His arguments mostly amount to a disagreement with underlying evidence. This disagreement goes to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility, and is the proper subject of cross-examination.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Scriven V. VitalCore Health Strategies, LLC named as “Vital Core, LLC” |
| Docket Number: | 5:22cv3282 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Order Date: | May 20, 2026 |
Leave a Reply