This litigation stems from the death of Charles Lamar Vanlandingham in September of 2019. Plaintiff alleged that Vanlandingham suffered a medical episode with seizure activity in the early morning hours of September 15, 2019, and Vanlandingham’s girlfriend called 911. According to Plaintiff, Vanlandingham started to improve in the time it took EMS to arrive. Following the seizure activity, Vanlandingham had apparently transitioned to a “postictal state” that can cause confusion.
Although Vanlandingham was initially compliant with EMS upon their arrival, Plaintiff alleged that “EMS providers tried to force Vanlandingham onto their medical cot,” and when Vanlandingham did not comply, “[EMT] Tuttle ultimately tackled Vanlandingham onto the medical cot.”
Once members of the Oklahoma City Fire Department arrived, Plaintiff alleged that the Firefighters used their body weight to pin Vanlandingham in the prone position for approximately three minutes before Oklahoma City Police Officer Brandon Lee arrived. Officer Lee then put handcuffs on Vanlandingham—still in the prone position—and placed his knee across Vanlandingham’s back.
Plaintiff alleged that Vanlandingham was in this position, handcuffed, for approximately four minutes, during which time “no one checked Vanlandingham’s vitals or advocated for a position change despite Vanlandingham’s clear signs of respiratory distress.” “Without knowing Mr. Vanlandingham’s vitals and without performing any kind of medical assessment,” EMT Tuttle then administered midazolam (a sedative), and Vanlandingham went limp. CPR efforts were unsuccessful, and Vanlandingham died at the scene.
Plaintiff’s claims are against Defendants City of Oklahoma City, Officer Brandon Lee, and American Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. (AMRAS).
During discovery, AMRAS disclosed an expert report prepared by Jim Morrisey, EMT-Paramedic, M.A. Plaintiff contended that Morrissey’s opinions are not reliable as he has failed to provide a basis for his opinions.
Emergency Medical Services Expert Witness
Jim Morrisey, EMT-Paramedic, M.A is a certified and licensed paramedic in the state of California and former police officer. He holds both undergraduate and graduate degrees. His entire career has been focused on the field of emergency medicine and education including as a college level adjunct professor in emergency medicine.
Over the last 35 years he has been involved in emergency medicine as a field practitioner, critical care paramedic, flight paramedic, backcountry wilderness paramedic and as an imbedded tactical paramedic with the San Francisco FBI SWAT team.
Discussion by the Court
I. Morrissey’s supplemental report is timely
Morrissey supplemented his expert report on May 28, 2025. In it, Morrissey expands on four of his opinions listed in his initial report but predominately provides supplemental explanations for the purported basis of his opinions. Plaintiff contended that Morrissey’s supplemental report is untimely under Rule 26.
Here, the parties’ deadline for final witness and exhibit lists and discovery expired before Morrissey issued his supplemental report. However, Rule 26(a)(3) also refers to the deadline to file deposition designations, which has yet to expire. Accordingly, the Court found that Morrissey’s supplemental report is timely under Rule 26(e)(2).
II. Daubert Motion
Plaintiff argued that Morrissey should not be permitted to testify regarding his opinions because he did not identify how his experience in the emergency medicine services field led to his specific opinions or what he relied upon in reaching his opinions. Plaintiff asserted that Morrissey’s explanation of the purported basis of his opinions is insufficient, as they are too generalized to test Morrissey’s conclusions for their reliability.
Upon review of Morrissey’s supplemental report, the Court found that he, at times, failed to adequately identify the basis of his opinions or explain how certain standards or his experience led to his conclusions. Morrissey’s experience in emergency medical services, standing alone, is not sufficient to support his opinions.
By referring to the protocols and textbook as a basis for his opinion, Morrissey narrowly answers the question of what standards, customs, or practices he is applying to support his opinion.
To the extent Plaintiff takes issue with a perceived lack of information or the conclusions Morrissey derived therefrom, Plaintiff may thoroughly cross-examine him at trial.
However, Morrissey not only references the protocols and textbooks that he relies upon to support his opinions, but also his experience in emergency medical services when dealing with “situations where scene safety or patient presentation was quickly evolving.” Therefore, Morrissey’s opinion that “changes in patient status were promptly identified, assessed, and appropriately addressed” is sufficiently supported. So too is Morrissey’s opinion that “the Code was appropriately called after 35 minutes, when the emergency crews were unable to gain return of spontaneous circulation, and only after consulting with the hospital-based emergency physician.”
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the opinions of Jim Morrisey.
Key Takeaway
Morrissey’s opinions are based on his extensive knowledge and experience in the field of emergency medical services and the data, documents, and information he was provided regarding the Vanlandingham incident. However, the Plaintiff was left with little or no way to test Morrissey’s conclusions against any of the guidelines or factors involved in a Daubert analysis or to otherwise determine their reliability.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Vanlandingham V. City of Oklahoma City |
| Docket Number: | 5:22cv209 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Oklahoma Western |
| Order Date: | March 18, 2026 |
Leave a Reply