Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Housekeeping Standards

Civil Engineering Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Housekeeping Standards

On April 29, 2024, Helen Olenik and John Olenik were passengers aboard Carnival Corporation’s ship, M/V Carnival Pride. Helen Olenik fell on an exterior tile floor after walking through sliding glass doors leading from the interior of the ship to the Serenity pool deck.

Defendants filed a motion to strike and exclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s experts, Francisco De Caso Basalo and Nicholas D. A. Suite, and a separate motion to strike Plaintiff’s supplemental Rule 26 expert disclosure for Nicholas Suite, as well as the untimely supplemental disclosure concerning Victoria Maria-Sekunda.

Civil Engineering Expert Witness

Francisco Jose De Caso Y Basalo has over fifteen years of experience conducting slip resistance evaluations in maritime and other environments, has testified as an expert in numerous slip-and-fall cases, and participates in the Advancing Standards Transforming Markets (“ASTM”) F13 Committee on Pedestrian/Walkway Safety and Footwear Standards Development.

De Caso is also the founder of The Integrated Built Infrastructure Group LLC, which specializes in pedestrian walkway safety and slip resistance evaluation. He is a Certified XL Tribometrist, has completed the Walkway Safety Certification program at the University of North Texas College of Engineering, and has earned the Walkway Auditor Certificate from the National Floor Safety Institute.

Discover more cases with Francisco De Caso as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report

Neurology Expert Witness

Nicholas David Alexander Suite received his M.D. from The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and completed postgraduate training in neurology (including chief residency) at The New York Hospital–Cornell University Medical Center, with an additional year of neurology residency at the University of Miami School of Medicine. He is the Owner and Director of Neurology Diagnosis & Applied Solutions (NDAS) and has served in academic teaching roles including Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurology at Nova Southeastern University’s Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine.

Get the full story on challenges to Nicholas D.A. Suite’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

Neuropsychology Expert Witness

Victoria-Maria S. Sekunda, PsyD is a board certified clinical neuropsychologist who conducts neuropsychological evaluations and diagnostic assessments, primarily with older adults on an outpatient basis. 

Want to know more about the challenges Victoria-Maria Sekunda has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

i. Dr. Francisco De Caso

Carnival contended that De Caso is not qualified to opine on human factors or housekeeping standards. Also, Carnival avers that the majority of De Caso’s opinions are speculative and unsupported by a reliable methodology.

The Court noted that Carnival did not contest De Caso’s qualifications as a slip resistance expert but challenged his qualifications to opine about human factors and housekeeping standards.

Carnival did not contest the reliability of De Caso’s slip index measurements of the subject floor but challenged his opinions as lacking any identifiable methodology. These included his opinions that the floor was more likely than not to become wet at the time of the incident, as well as his later observations—made approximately one and a half years afterward—of a grease film, which he inferred was present on the day in question. With respect to De Caso’s opinions beyond his slip index testing, Plaintiff failed to establish any reliable methodology.

It should be noted that Plaintiff has agreed to redact all legal conclusions from the expert report and limit the testimony of De Caso to opinions related to his slip index testing. 

ii. Dr. Nicholas Suite and Dr. Victoria-Maria Sekunda

After the filing of the motion, on February 4, 2026, Plaintiff served Carnival a supplemental Rule 26 expert witness disclosure which included a report from Suite. Thereafter, on February 6, 2026, Plaintiff served Carnival a second supplemental disclosure which disclosed a new witness, Dr. Victoria-Maria Sekunda, and a copy of her report concerning neuropsychological evaluations conducted of Helen Olenik.

Carnival argued that discovery closed on January 6, 2026, and the deadline for the Parties to file dispositive pre-trial motions was January 28, 2026. As such, Carnival contended that the late disclosure of those reports is neither substantially justified nor harmless, and the reports should be excluded. Carnival also sought to exclude the testimony of Suite and Sekunda.

Carnival pointed out that even though Suite evaluated Helen Olenik and prepared a report dated September 22, 2025, the report was not served until four months later, after discovery closed and the deadline for filing dispositive motions passed. Basically, Carnival contended that this report is the first time it has been asserted that Helen Olenik’s post-incident mental decline was caused by a head injury. Likewise, Carnival pointed out that Sekunda first evaluated Helen Olenik on November 25, 2025, yet the February 6, 2026, supplemental notice was the first time Sekunda’s role as a treating doctor was disclosed.

The Court found that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of showing that the failure to comply with Rule 26 was substantially justified or harmless.

As Plaintiff acknowledged, Suite’s report was not provided until February 4, 2026, well after the close of discovery and after the deadline to exchange expert witness reports. Similarly, Sekunda was not disclosed as an expert until February 6, 2026.

As for Suite, Plaintiff has offered no explanation for why he did not seek an extension of the Court’s deadlines.

Held

  • The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to strike and exclude the opinions from the Plaintiff’s experts, Francisco De Caso Basalo.
  • The Court also granted the Defendant’s motion to strike the Plaintiff’s supplemental Rule 26 expert witness disclosure for Nicholas Suite and untimely supplemental disclosure of Victoria Maria-Sekunda.

Key Takeaway

In determining whether a failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless, the Court considers the non-disclosing party’s explanation for the failure, the importance of the information, and any prejudice to the opposing party if the information were admitted.

Case Details:

Case Caption:Olenik V. Carnival Corporation
Docket Number:1:25cv20901
Court Name:United States District Court, Florida Southern
Order Date:April 03, 2026

Comments

Leave a Reply

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