This civil rights action stems from the in-custody death of Kimberley Morrissey-Scalia while a pretrial detainee in Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility in Kern County.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to preclude Defendants’ expert, Michael E. Gold, M.D., “from: (1) testifying to any opinions on medical causation that are outside the scope of his expertise; and (2) testifying as to his inadmissible legal conclusions – i.e., [his] legal opinions on ultimate issues of law.”
Neurology Expert Witness
Michael E. Gold is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of California and is Board certified in neurology. He obtained his medical degree from University of Illinois School of Medicine in 1981. He received his California State Medical license in July 1982 and underwent a residency in neurology at UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute that concluded in 1985. Prior to that, he interned in internal medicine from 1981-1982 at UCLA.
He became board-certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology in 1998. He operated as Section Head of the Department of Neurology at UCLA-Santa Monica Hospital and Medical Center from 1990 to 1996 and was an attending physician in that same department up until 2009. Gold is an Associate Clinical professor at UCLA Hospital and Neuropsychiatric Institute. He is a Qualified Medical Examiner for the State of California Worker’s Compensation Board.
Discussion by the Court
1. Opinions on Medical Causation
Plaintiffs argued that Gold should not be permitted to opine that Scalia’s death was “due to an end-stage disease process, namely, liver cirrhosis and resultant coagulopathy” because he lacks expertise in those areas. Second, Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the opinion that “[h]ad Scalia been brought to Kern Medical Center after the first visit to the infirmary following the first fall, it would not have made a difference in the outcome.”
Qualification
Although Plaintiffs argued that Gold “is neither a neurosurgeon, nor an emergency medicine physician, nor a hepatologist, nor a hematologist, nor an expert in liver disease, cirrhosis, nor, inter alia, coagulopathy,” the Court held that the medical concepts implicated here do not exceed his expertise.
In preparing his report, Gold reviewed relevant evidence including Lerdo Pre-trial Facility records of Scalia, the Coroner’s Report of Eugene Carpenter, Jr., and Kern Medical Center medical records and radiology studies.
Moreover, the Court added that Gold’s experience as a neurologist is particularly relevant to inform his judgement in this case—where trauma to the head occurred which may have implicated neurological function—and his examination of the medical records and other case-related documents provide a foundation for the opinions expressed in his report. “[P]hysicians would accept [his testimony] as useful and reliable.”
In his report, Gold considered several possible medical causes for Scalia’s death. For example, he considered brain compression and subsequent herniation. Gold also considered whether Scalia’s subdural hematoma was more consistent with cerebral atrophy due to an underlying condition.
Gold also found that “there is evidence on CT scan and neuroradiology interpretation that part of the subdural hematoma was ‘chronic,’ indicating that head trauma preexisted prior to [Scalia’s] incarceration.”
In his report, Gold relied on these findings and conclusions to support his opinion that “a minor, initially uncomplicated ‘bump’ on the head occurred during the progressive medical deterioration of Scalia that ultimately resulted in death due to an end-stage disease process, namely, liver cirrhosis and resultant coagulopathy.”
Therefore, Gold’s findings and analysis provide support for his conclusion that Scalia’s death was not due to “the absence of timely intervention in the treatment of her subdural hematoma.”
Legal Conclusions
Defendants did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it sought to exclude Gold’s testimony as to legal conclusions. Instead, they requested a bilateral order requiring all experts to refrain from using legal conclusions in their testimony.
The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part, to preclude testimony by Gold as to legal conclusions. Here, medical expert testimony is appropriate to establish medical diagnoses and medical causation. Gold may thus offer opinions as to such matters, consistent with his expert report. However, neither Gold nor other medical experts shall testify at trial as to whether Defendants’ conduct was deliberately indifferent, reckless, unconstitutional, intentional, or in conscious disregard of the decedent’s rights.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude certain testimony of Michael E. Gold.
Key Takeaway:
Gold’s opinions in this case were based on his education, training, and experience as a board-certified neurologist and his review of the relevant records. Under Daubert, the district court is tasked with “ensuring that junk science is kept out of the federal courtroom” by acting as a gatekeeper. The judge should “screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, but not exclude opinions merely because they are impeachable.”
The Court held that Gold’s medical opinions met these gatekeeping tests.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Perry Et Al V. County Of Kern Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:17cv1097 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Eastern |
| Order Date: | April 21, 2025 |
Leave a Reply