Plaintiffs Elizabeth Combs, Thomas Johnston, Kimberly Herechberger and Michelle Boltz brought religious discrimination claims against their former employer PeaceHealth for failure to accommodate their religious beliefs in opposition to COVID-19 vaccination.
In addition to bringing a religious discrimination claim, Boltz brought a disability discrimination claim against PeaceHealth for failure to accommodate her disability under the ADA and Oregon law.
Defendant filed a motion to strike the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Rose Walker Patterson, because she is “unqualified to render the opinions in her reports” and because her opinions are unreliable and irrelevant.
Nursing Expert Witness
Rose Walker Patterson is a Registered Nurse with a master’s degree in nursing administration—not epidemiology, virology, or infectious disease—who earned a certificate in infection control and prevention from the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology.
From April 2017 through October 2022, Patterson worked as the Infection Preventionist and Employee Health nurse for Sky Lakes Medical Center (“SLMC”), a small, rural hospital in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Patterson was part of a committee that developed a “playbook planning for the pandemic” with which she was “heavily involved.”
Discussion by the Court
A. Patterson is Qualified to Offer Infection Preventionist Testimony
PeaceHealth contended that Patterson is not qualified to offer expert testimony because she lacked relevant education, training, and experience.
Patterson is not a medical doctor and has no advanced education or training in epidemiology or in infectious diseases or any other medical field. Further, she has no research experience or publications related to COVID-19. And she has never taught at a college or university.
Patterson, however, testified that in her role as nurse infection preventionist, she helped develop the weekly testing program at SLMC for employees with approved accommodations.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that although Patterson is not qualified to offer scientific or medical opinion, she is qualified to offer expert testimony based on her knowledge and experience as a nurse infection preventionist at SLMC during the pandemic.
B. Patterson’s Opinions are not Reliable
First, Patterson’s opinions are not based on sufficient facts or data because (1) she based her opinions on an incorrect understanding of the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) Rule requiring all Oregon healthcare providers and staff to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by September 30, 2021, absent medical or religious exception, or to “undergo COVID-19 testing at least weekly” and (2) she provided no documentation or data to support the work she claims to have done at SLMC.
Patterson also provided no documentation for the program she claimed to have developed or implemented, and she provided no data about the clinical variables or outcomes of that program.
The Court concluded that Patterson’s testimony is not based on sufficient facts and data because Patterson’s opinions rely on her misunderstanding of the OHA Rule and because Patterson failed to provide any underlying documentation or data to support her testimony.
Second, Patterson’s opinions are not reliable because, in addition to failing to provide documentation and data, she also did not use reliable principles and methods to produce her opinions. In fact, Patterson did not produce her opinions at all.
The Court concluded that Patterson did not conduct her own research, she did not undertake an independent analysis of the facts and data, and she did not author significant parts of her own Reports. Patterson’s opinions not only lacked factual basis; they also are not the product of reliable principles and methods.
2. Patterson’s Opinions are not Relevant
Even if Patterson’s testimony were reliable, it is not relevant. Patterson lacked the relevant facts and data to compare SLMC to PeaceHealth. Patterson testified generally about the differences between the two healthcare employers.
She also testified that she lacked the relevant facts and data to compare PeaceHealth to SLMC. Importantly, the undue hardship standard at issue requires that an employer, when making an accommodation decision, consider the facts before them at the time the decision is made.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to strike the testimony of Rose Walker-Patterson.
Key Takeaway
Recalling facts, data, and policy from memory without underlying documentation or data is insufficient to support expert testimony. Basically, Patterson’s testimony is neither reliable nor relevant. Patterson’s testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and failed to reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Combs V. Peacehealth |
| Docket Number: | 6:23cv1486 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Order Date: | March 17, 2026 |
Leave a Reply