Emergency Medicine Expert Barred From Testifying Due to His Admitted Lack of Knowledge

Emergency Medicine Expert Barred From Testifying Due to His Admitted Lack of Knowledge

Plaintiff Emilee Bradley sued Defendants BSL Express Trucking, Inc. and Fatkhuddin Kurbonov in Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging various claims arising from an automobile accident involving Bradley and Fatkhuddin Kurbonov. Intervening Plaintiff Shawna Broyles (hereinafter “Broyles”) was a passenger of Plaintiff Bradley’s vehicle.

Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinion of Broyles’ proffered expert, Dr. Jules J. Barefoot.

Defendants asserted that Barefoot’s expert report “is devoid of any meaningful analysis or reasoning” and therefore would not aid the jury with its deliberation of any issues in the case. Additionally, Defendants argued that Barefoot is not qualified to opine regarding Broyles’ dental injuries, scarring, or alleged concussion.

Emergency Medicine Expert Witness

Julius Jackson Barefoot is a medical doctor certified in emergency and preventative medicine. In addition, Barefoot is a certified independent medical examiner and has extensive experience evaluating injuries in the litigation context.

Want to know more about the challenges Jules Barefoot has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Broyles intended to introduce Barefoot to testify that she suffered injuries from the accident and that “all of the medical care and medical bills [she] incurred . . . were reasonable, necessary, and appropriate for the injuries sustained.”

The Court agreed with Defendants that Barefoot’s proposed testimony must be excluded. Because Barefoot’s report did not outline his reasoning or methodology, the Court is left to speculate as to whether Barefoot’s opinion “is the product of reliable principles and methods” or whether he has reliably applied those “principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Indeed, Barefoot provided no explanation for his conclusion that Broyles’ medical treatment was appropriate.

The Court is also not convinced that Barefoot’s testimony would aid the jury. Barefoot’s report largely consisted of a summarization of Broyles’ medical records. And because Barefoot offered only a conclusory statement that Broyles’ treatment was necessary and appropriate, his proposed testimony did nothing to meaningfully “contextualize, analyze, and interpret” this historical information.

Finally, the Court noted that Barefoot’s report repeatedly stated that he has not evaluated Broyles and that he is unaware of the full extent of her injuries and treatment. Barefoot’s admitted lack of knowledge regarding the full extent of Broyles’ injuries and treatment therefore made it impossible for him to reliably testify in the manner Broyles intended.

Held

The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinion of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Jules Barefoot.

Key Takeaway:

Information presented without any expert analysis or other application of the expert’s expertise generally should come to the jury directly from the sources rather than through the mouth of the expert. In this case, Broyles’ medical history “should come to the jury directly from the sources rather than through the mouth of” Barefoot.

Case Details:

Case Caption:Bradley V. BSL Express Trucking, Inc. Et Al
Docket Number:3:23cv133
Court Name:United States District Court, Kentucky Western
Order Date:August 18, 2025

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *