In this instant interpleader action filed by Plaintiff Minnesota Life Insurance Company, Defendant Melissa D. Alexander (“Alexander”) claimed that undue influence caused her estranged husband to change a beneficiary designation on a life insurance policy. This change directed benefits to the decedent’s mother, Defendant Marcia Gayle (“Gayle”), and an adult son.
Alexander sought to exclude Gayle’s rebuttal neuropsychology expert witness, Robert Brown, arguing that his opinion ignored several critical text messages between Gayle and the decedent. According to Alexander, these messages could provide evidence of Gayle’s undue influence on the decedent. In her brief, Alexander argued that Brown’s cursory treatment of these text messages undermined the factual basis of his opinion, making it unreliable and inadmissible.
Neuropsychology Expert Witness
Robert Stanley Brown completed his undergraduate degree in biology at the University of Virginia. He attended medical school at the University of Virginia and graduated in 1981. Brown then completed dual residency training in internal medicine and psychiatry, and he served as the forensic psychiatry fellow at the University of Virginia Institute for Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy. He is board certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties in Internal Medicine, Psychiatry, and Forensic Psychiatry. Brown is licensed in Virginia, North Carolina, and West Virginia.
He is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, American Psychiatric Association, and the Blue Ridge Chapter of the Psychiatric Society of Virginia.
Discussion by the Court
Alexander’s motion to exclude Brown’s testimony alleged that the opinion lacked factual support and was therefore unreliable. But as Gayle’s opposition correctly noted, Brown’s opinion analyzed the same evidence considered by Ducharme.That evidence included neuropsychological testing, medical records, and statements from the guardian ad litem and others. Far from lacking factual support, Brown conducted a detailed review of twenty-three categories of source material, including Ducharme’s reports, medical records, radiology reports, the decedent’s divorce pleadings, and discovery produced in this case. Alexander’s motion did not explain how Brown’s failure to also explore the text communications in detail undermines his otherwise rigorously documented opinions that the decedent had capacity and was not vulnerable to undue influence.
The Court held that Brown’s detailed citation to the medical record, history of the decedent’s interaction with his divorce attorney, and statements made by both his treating physician and Ducharme herself, all provide support for his opinions.
Alexander’s motion implied that the text messages between Gayle and the decedent provide evidence of Gayle’s undue influence on the decedent that Brown’s report does not negate. But Brown is a neuropsychologist. He was retained specifically to respond to medical evidence from another neuropsychologist, Ducharme, regarding the decedent’s capacity and susceptibility to undue influence. The Court concluded that Brown was not required to respond to every theory Alexander asserted and his failure to discuss in detail any specific text messages (and none have been identified) does not render his opinion inadmissible.
Held
The Court denied Alexander’s motion to exclude Gayle’s neuropsychology expert witness Robert S. Brown’s rebuttal expert opinions and testimony.
Key Takeaway:
When a motion to exclude questions the factual underpinnings of an opinion, such complaints generally affect the weight and credibility of the witness’ assessment, not its admissibility, and are best addressed by cross examination. The trial court’s role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system, and consequently, the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule!
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Case Details:
| Case caption: | Minnesota Life Insurance Company V. Alexander Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv207 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division |
| Dated: | November 6, 2024 |
Leave a Reply