Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Nursing Expert Witness

  • Correctional Healthcare Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Physical Symptoms

    Correctional Healthcare Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Physical Symptoms

    This action arises from the death of Gregory Neil Davis while he was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the Oklahoma County Detention Center. Plaintiff, as special administrator of the estate of Davis, alleged that numerous Jail and Medical Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Davis’ serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and were negligent under state law.

    Plaintiff filed three motions to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Paul M. Adler, Kathryn J. Wild, RN and Lori E. Roscoe, PhD.

    Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness

    Paul Morris Adler is a licensed medical doctor with a board certification in emergency medicine and a background in providing medical care in correctional settings.

    Discover more cases with Paul Adler as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Nursing Expert Witnesses

    Kathryn Jean Wild, RN is a registered nurse and a Certified Corrections Healthcare Professional. She has decades of experience as a nurse in correctional settings. 

    Get the full story on challenges to Kathryn Wild’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Lori Elisabeth Roscoe, Ph.D., APRN is a nurse practitioner and Certified Correctional Health Professional with decades of experience in correctional healthcare, including with policy development, staff supervision, and administration.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Adler

    Adler’s report largely consisted of factual narrative followed by his observation as to what the underlying facts show, including conclusions that there is “no evidence” or no “information or testimony” suggesting that Davis communicated his physical symptoms to anyone at the jail. These statements did not involve the application of scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge but instead expressed opinions that are “essentially factual matters as to which expert testimony is inappropriate and/or unnecessary.”

    When Adler comes closer to expressing an opinion that might be the proper subject of expert testimony, he fails to identify facts, data, standards, practices, or any other reliable principles that support his conclusions. For example, Adler opined that it is probable that symptoms began after August 9th and that an earlier medical exam would not have changed the outcome, but he did not adequately explain the basis of these opinions. Adler also speculates about what Davis knew and inappropriately weighs in on the credibility of a witness.

    Given the deficiencies in Adler’s report, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony.

    B. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Nurse Wild

    Plaintiff argued that Kathryn Wild offered several opinions that are outside the scope of her expertise and challenged the reliability and relevance of the other opinions.

    The Court found that Wild is qualified to offer opinions as to whether the medical staff responded appropriately and complied with applicable standards based on Davis’ clinical presentation. Additionally, although Wild is not an expert as to jail operations in general, her experience renders her qualified to offer opinions on how medical and nursing services operate in a correctional setting.

    Wild reached her opinions by reviewing medical records, deposition testimony, facility documentation and other evidence and then applying her experience in correctional health care. Further, and importantly, she identified the correctional health care standards that govern and the facts that supported her opinions.

    However, Wild’s report suffered from two deficiencies that render certain opinions unreliable or unhelpful to the jury. First, her opinion that the medical and mental health staff were not deliberately indifferent is an impermissible legal conclusion. Second, Wild’s report included factual narrative followed by conclusions that there is “no evidence” or “no documentation” that Davis verbalized or demonstrated pain or distress. These opinions did not involve the application of any specialized medical or nursing knowledge and were simply based on testimony from staff stating that Davis did not request help and the absence of any reports of pain in the medical charting.

    C. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Nurse Roscoe

    Plaintiffs have identified Lori Roscoe, Ph.D., APRN as an expert witness that will opine on standards of care and the care provided to Davis while he was detained.

    The Medical Defendants argued that she was unqualified to offer opinions as to whether the actions of a licensed professional counselor that saw Davis during his incarceration were appropriate. They also contended that her opinions regarding the scope of practice of a licensed practical nurse are unreliable.

    Although Roscoe is not a licensed professional counselor, she has experience in correctional healthcare operations and staff supervision. Her opinions are grounded in that expertise as they speak to when correctional healthcare staff should escalate care to another provider as opposed to the quality of the counseling provided by the LPC or the adequacy of the psychiatric treatment provided to Davis. The Court held that Roscoe’s experience and training are sufficient to render her qualified to opine on standards and practices for referring patients in correctional settings for additional evaluation and treatment.

    The Medical Defendants contended that Roscoe’s opinion that the LPN acted outside the scope of her practice by making diagnostic decisions, and specifically by attributing Davis’ change in condition to a mental health problem without referring him for a medical evaluation, is unreliable because she did not cite any authority to support her opinion. The Court agreed that Roscoe’s opinion that the LPN “exceeded the scope of her practice” or acted “far outside the scope of LPN practice” is not supported by sufficient facts or reliable methods and principles.

    Additionally, Roscoe’s deposition testimony indicated that the basis of her criticism of the LPN’s actions is not necessarily that she referred him to mental health, but that she did not also refer him for a medical evaluation given his symptoms.

    Although Roscoe’s explanation of the applicable standards could have been more detailed, the Court found that her opinion that the LPN’s actions deviated from accepted standards is sufficient to satisfy Rule 702‘s reliability requirements.

    Held

    • The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Paul Adler.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Kathryn J. Wild, RN.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Lori Roscoe, PhD.

    Key Takeaway

    An expert opinion “must be based on facts which enable her to express a reasonably accurate conclusion as opposed to conjecture or speculation.” The credibility of witnesses is generally not an appropriate subject for expert testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Simms V. Board Of County Commissioners For Oklahoma County
    Docket Number: 5:23cv780
    Court Name: United States District Court, Oklahoma Western
    Order Date: February 03, 2026
  • Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

    Corrections Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

    Terri Beth Mays died on November 4, 2021, while she was an inmate at the Whitley County Detention Center. Her Estate (“Mays’ Estate”) alleged that Jail personnel, nurses, and medical providers were responsible for ensuring her health and safety while she was in their custody, yet they failed to address her obviously serious medical needs and acted with deliberate indifference to those needs.

    Mays’ Estate named as Defendants Whitley County; Jailer Brian Lawson; Sergeants Austin Caldwell and Joseph Cureton; Deputy Jailers Sula Bowman, Kaytee George, Zach Hughes, and Nick Huddleston; Southern Health Partners, Inc.

    Defendants filed three motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses: Anthony Callisto as well as Doctors Terren Trott, MD and Lori Roscoe.

    Corrections Expert Witness

    Anthony Callisto, Jr. has over 40 years of experience in the correctional system. His experience is vast, ranging from correctional officer, Chief Deputy, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, American Jail Association President, and criminal justice professor.

    Get the full story on challenges to Anthony Callisto’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Lori E. Roscoe is an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, certified through the National Commission on Correctional Health Care as a Certified Correctional Health Professional Registered Nurse (CCHP-RN).

    She has a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree from the University of Alabama, and a PhD in Healthcare Administration. Roscoe has a Master of Science degree in Nursing and a Master’s degree in Public Administration with a Healthcare Concentration. Roscoe began working in Corrections in 1995 as the Health Service Administrator for a female prison in the Northeastern United States. She has worked as an Associate Program Director and as a Regional Administrator on the statewide level. She has correctional business expertise in healthcare operations, policy and procedure development, project management, Continuous Quality Improvement, human resources, staff orientation and development, finance and contract auditing. Roscoe has worked with staff to achieve successful facility accreditation from both the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the American Correctional Association.

    Discover more cases with Lori Roscoe as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Emergency Medicine Expert Witness

    Dr. Terren R. Trott is an academic emergency medicine and critical care physician at the University of Kentucky College of Medicine.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Corrections Expert Anthony Castillo

    The Defendants argued that Castillo is unqualified and that his methodologies are unreliable. Further, the Defendants argued that his opinions are too general to be prescribed to any one Defendant.

    However, Castillo’s past background provided extensive technical and specialized knowledge that will help the jury understand the evidence on this case.

    The Defendants took issue with the fact that Castillo has never worked in Kentucky nor had he been in a small rural jail prior to his visit to the Whitley County Jail. The issue with the Defendants’ contention here is that it calls into question Castillo’s credibility, not admissibility.

    The Defendants accused Castillo of basing his opinions on “broad correctional standards rather than specific Kentucky statutes.” His report explicitly disproved this. Exhibit A of his report lists the “Sources Reflecting and Informing the Standard of Care.” Named among these standards are the Whitley County Detention Center Policies and Procedures, as well as multiple statutes and regulations. Likewise, Castillo’s report indicated that he reviewed all relevant pleadings, reports, depositions, and policies.

    Castillo’s ninety-nine page report is a comprehensive analysis of the Defendants’ roles and how their actions relate to the applicable standard of care. To the extent that the Defendants contested his opinion for being too generalized, they are disputing his conclusions, not his methodology.

    B. Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Terren Trott, MD and Dr. Lori Roscoe

    The Defendants’ motion as to Terren Trott and Lori Roscoe was simple. They argued that “neither witness is qualified to render opinions regarding Whitley County jail policies or practices.” Because of this, they objected to any testimony by either of these witnesses that non-medical personnel actions were negligent or reckless. The Plaintiff did not contest this motion.

    The Plaintiff agreed that neither of these experts will give opinions on Kentucky Jail standards, Whitley County Jail policies or procedures or that any non-medical Defendants’ actions violated the law. Finding no disagreement here, the Court concluded that Doctors Trott and Roscoe are barred from giving opinions regarding the non-medical Defendants’ culpability.

    Held

    • The Court denied Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Anthony Castillo.
    • The Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Doctors Terren Trott and Lori Roscoe.

    Key Takeaway

    Castillo’s lack of experience in an identical facility goes to the weight of his testimony, which is a matter properly left to the jury. Rule 702 does not require an expert to have identical background experience.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Webb V. Whitley County, Kentucky
    Docket Number: 6:23cv188
    Court Name: United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern
    Order Date: April 21, 2026
  • Nursing Expert’s Infection Preventionist Testimony Excluded

    Nursing Expert’s Infection Preventionist Testimony Excluded

    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.” 

    Want to know more about the challenges Rose Walker-Patterson has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    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
  • Nursing Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions Limited

    Nursing Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions Limited

    This is a medical negligence case filed by Plaintiff Tanya Soule, as holder of Power of Attorney for Marlene Do, her mother, a currently disabled adult, and Long Do, her husband. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and manage Marelene’s ischemic stroke on December 11, 2019.

    Defendants Blessing Hospital; Scott Hough, M.D.; Shaila O’Dear, R.N.; Jason Little, APRN; Kristin Hampton, R.N.; Angelo Liana, M.D.; and Rebecca Dennison, R.N. filed a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to bar Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Nurse Linda K. Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS, from testifying because she is not qualified to testify on future costs derivative of medical coding decisions and her life care plan is unsupported by medical evidence and fails to account for preexisting injuries. 

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Linda K. Wilson-Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS is a certified nurse life care planner and certified brain injury specialist who has spent the last 19 years developing life care plans. She is a member of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners, where she spent two years as the National Conference Chairperson, a member of the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants, where she served as President of her chapter, and a member of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Linda Schwieger’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    In seeking exclusion, Defendants noted that Schwieger conceded through her discovery deposition that she has no training, education, or experience in medical coding. Defendants claimed that this is significant because her cost opinions related to a portion of her life care plan derive from her independent medical coding decisions. Additionally, because her opinions are not supported by independent admissible evidence, Schwieger’s future cost opinions are irrelevant. Finally, Schwieger failed to account for whether Marlene would have needed the items and services in her life care plan due to her preexisting conditions.

    B. Qualifications to Testify on Future Costs Using Medical Coding Decisions

    Defendants contended that, despite Schwieger’s lack of training, education, or experience in the world of medical coding, she selected the second highest code and cost available for every physician service in Marlene’s life care plan.

    Defendants contended that Schwieger’s life care plan opinion associated with (1) Physician Care; (2) Diagnostics; and (3) Physical, Occupational, and Speech-Language Therapies should be excluded because, based on the complexity of medical coding and given that she has not been trained or educated on how to select an appropriate medical code, she is not qualified under Daubert to render such opinions.

    Given the nature and complexity of medical coding and the fact that Schwieger has no training, education, or experience in selecting medical codes for a patient, the Court concludes Schwieger lacked the requisite specialized knowledge under Rule 702 to select medical codes. Significantly, Schwieger did not base the medical codes she selected on codes that had previously been selected by healthcare providers. Instead, she independently selected medical codes that she believes may be selected by Marlene’s future healthcare providers. Her decision as to the appropriate code was “based on the complexity of what I know about [Marlene] and her issues.” However, Schwieger admitted that she is not qualified to make medical diagnoses and must rely upon decisions made by Marlene’s treating physicians.

    Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to the extent it sought the exclusion of Schwieger’s life care plan opinions premised upon her medical coding selections: (1) Physician Care, (2) Diagnostics, and (3) Physical, Occupational, and Speech-Language Therapies.

    C. Medical Evidence in Support of Life Care Plan

    Defendants next contended that Schwieger’s life care plan is unsupported by medical evidence and fails to account for preexisting injuries. Specifically, she failed to collaborate with a physician for most of the opinions and did not account for Marlene’s preexisting conditions in developing her life care plan. 

    Plaintiffs argued that Schwieger relied on the medical opinions of a board-certified physical medicine and rehabilitation physician who has cared for thousands of stroke patients over the last 15 years, when drafting the life care plan. Schwieger also reviewed Marlene’s medical records and the deposition testimony of two of her medical providers. As a result, the Court concluded that the information is sufficiently reliable and relevant to assist the factfinder.

    Defendants further noted that Schwieger was aware that, prior to her December 2019 stroke, Marlene had a debilitating condition known as rheumatoid arthritis, which resulted in her being on social security disability for two decades. Defendants contended that Schwieger failed to consider Marlene’s preexisting condition. However, while Plaintiffs appeared not to have disclosed any physicians to differentiate which items and services in Schwieger’s life care plan would have been needed if Marlene had not suffered a stroke, Mathew’s testimony touches on the issue.

    Thus, the Court declined to bar Schwieger’s testimony as to the life care plans.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to bar the testimony of Linda Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS.

    Key Takeaway:

    While Schwieger lacked the requisite specialized knowledge under Rule 702 to select medical codes, Schwieger’s review of Marlene’s medical records, review of the deposition testimony of her treating physicians, her nursing assessment of Marlene, and Schwieger’s own education, training, and experience, all formed the factual basis of her life care plan. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Do Et Al V. Blessing Hospital, A Corporation Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:20cv1398
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Central
    Order Date: September 19, 2025
  • Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony Regarding the Standard of Care in an Involuntary Detention Setting Admitted

    Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony Regarding the Standard of Care in an Involuntary Detention Setting Admitted

    This case arises out of Plaintiff Gregory Palm’s claim that he received deficient medical care while incarcerated in the Jones County Jail and Baldwin County Detention Center.

    Sheriff Butch Reese, Captain Shane Moody, Lieutenant Brent Skinner, and Lieutenant Dalton Hart (hereinafter “Defendants”) disclosed Kathryn Wild and Paul Cappitelli as expert witnesses. Plaintiff Gregory Palm filed a motion to exclude the testimony of these witnesses.

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Kathryn Jean Wild has extensive experience working alongside, supervising, and training correctional officers regarding their responsibilities and duties as they relate to the provision of healthcare in a correctional facility.

    Wild is a registered nurse with a bachelor’s degree in health services management and a master’s in public administration. She has worked in the field of correctional healthcare for forty years and has been certified as a correctional healthcare professional since 1991.

    Get the full story on challenges to Kathryn Wild’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Paul A. Cappitelli is a career law enforcement officer with extensive experience working in administration, patrol, custody, homicide investigation, public affairs, and gang enforcement.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Expert Testimony of Kathryn Wild

    Palm asserted that Wild is not qualified to opine about the conduct of jail correctional officers because she is a nurse and not a correctional officer herself.

    Wild is a registered nurse who has worked in the correctional healthcare setting for nearly forty years. She worked as a nurse in five correctional facilities, then went on to serve as the health services administrator for San Bernardino County, California, and the deputy agency director for correctional health services for Orange County, California. In her supervisory roles for San Bernardino County and Orange County, she was responsible for the oversight and training of non-medical staff such as corrections officers regarding the provision of healthcare services and she developed and implemented the healthcare policies that governed correctional facility employees.

    She now operates a consulting business in which she assists in training correctional facility staff, including correctional officers, on their responsibilities relating to the provision of healthcare for inmates and detainees. 

    The Court found that Wild is qualified to opine on the conduct of correctional officers in this action. While she may not be a correctional officer, Wild is familiar with (and has even participated in the creation of) standards governing the involvement of correctional officers in the provision of healthcare to detained individuals. She has first-hand experience training such officers on how they should provide healthcare to those in their custody. Wild’s knowledge and experience concerning the standards for correctional officers’ responsibilities relating to healthcare rendered her qualified to offer expert testimony in this action. 

    Having found that Wild was qualified to provide expert testimony on the subjects explained hereinabove, the Court found unpersuasive Palm’s argument that Wild’s testimony would be unreliable and unhelpful to the trier of fact.

    Expert Testimony of Paul Cappitelli

    Palm argued that Paul Cappitelli’s testimony should be excluded because it will not help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue.

    Cappitelli is a career law enforcement officer who opines that the jail staff in this action “were attentive and conscientious in their interactions with Palm” and “arranged for [Palm] to receive medical treatment” when they first noticed his need for medical attention, such that he was never denied medical care.

    He also opined that Palm was properly monitored during his incarceration in conditions that were adequate, and that there is no evidence that any policy or practice could have altered Palm’s health outcome.

    Cappitelli asserted that the jail staff were adequately trained and not responsible for medical care decisions. He based these opinions on “the standard of care prevalent in the corrections and custodial profession and facilities, and the practices of corrections personnel in this matter.”

    Cappitelli is familiar with the standard of care unique to the corrections environment because he has extensive experience “personally supervis[ing] numerous officers and professional staff support employees in a custody environment.” 

    In summary, the Court held that Cappitelli’s expert testimony regarding the standard of care in an involuntary detention setting, and whether the Defendants met that standard of care under the circumstances in this action, will assist the trier of fact.

    Held

    The Court denied Palm’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert witnesses, Kathryn Wild and Paul Cappitelli.

    Key Takeaway:

    Monitoring detainees or prisoners in a correctional environment is distinct from monitoring someone in the home or office in a way that average jurors may be familiar with. That unique setting carries with it a unique standard of care which the average layperson will likely need expert assistance to understand.

    Cappitelli’s testimony about the standard of care applicable to custodial officers in an involuntary detention setting goes beyond “what lawyers for the parties can argue in closing arguments.”  As long as Cappitelli connects his conclusions and opinions to the unique standard of care and special circumstances in the detention setting, they may be helpful to the jury. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Palm V. Corrcare Inc Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:24cv47
    Court Name: United States District Court, Georgia Middle
    Order Date August 11, 2025
  • Nursing Expert’s Testimony Would Not Assist the Jury in Determining Whether the Plaintiff has a Disability

    Nursing Expert’s Testimony Would Not Assist the Jury in Determining Whether the Plaintiff has a Disability

    Bernice McLaurin has sued her former employer, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Jackson, Mississippi, claiming racial discrimination and discrimination based on an unspecified medical disability. McLaurin, an African-American, was hired as a clinical pharmacist at the G.V. Sonny Montgomery Medical Center in Jackson (VAMC) on May 12, 2019, with a one-year probationary period. Her employment was terminated on May 8, 2020, with the stated reason being her absence without leave (AWOL) and failure to return to work after being directed.

    In substantiation of her claimed disability, the Plaintiff has furnished an expert report prepared by Ticonna Purdle, a nurse practitioner. Within this report, Purdle opines that the Plaintiff’s medical documentation indicates chronic airway symptoms post work-related exposure to Peridox. Purdle further notes the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of bronchiolitis and the pulmonologist’s findings of allergic rhinitis, postnasal drip, shortness of breath, and respiratory symptoms suggestive of asthma. Additionally, Purdle states that the Plaintiff experiences chronic cough and respiratory symptoms, and she attributes these conditions to exposure to Peridox.

    The Defendant, however, disputes Purdle’s conclusions, maintaining that she lacked the ability to substantiate the Plaintiff’s disability or the connection between Peridox exposure and her respiratory issues. As a result, the Defendant has filed a motion to exclude Purdle’s opinion, asserting its failure to satisfy Daubert‘s relevance standard.

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Ticonna Purdle, the founder of Nursing Speaks Incorporated and an advanced practice nurse, is also an American Heart Association (AHA) CPR instructor, a nurse practitioner, and a member of the American Public Health Association and Sigma Theta Tau International, the honor society of nursing. With over 20 years of experience in long-term, acute, and outpatient healthcare settings, she brings a wealth of expertise to her field.

    Get the full story on challenges to Ticonna Purdle’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    The Defendant presented excerpts from Ticonna Purdle’s deposition. In her testimony, Purdle acknowledged that while the Plaintiff reported symptoms suggestive of a chronic inflammatory airway condition, and her medical records “indicate a possible chronic respiratory inflammatory condition,” she was unaware of any formal respiratory diagnosis for the Plaintiff. Purdle also agreed that a January 26, 2020 CT scan initially suggested “findings supportive of respiratory bronchiolitis,” an inflammation of the small airways in the lungs, but the Plaintiff’s pulmonologist subsequently reported she did “not appreciate evidence of respiratory bronchiolitis” from the February CT scan, which was otherwise “unremarkable except for a single tiny granuloma right mid lung.”

    Furthermore, Purdle stated that despite various potential diagnoses noted in the medical records, she “[could not] infer a condition based off of the record review and the current information I have today” and could not confirm the Plaintiff’s suffering from a respiratory condition. Considering these candid admissions by Purdle, it is clear her testimony would not assist the jury in determining whether the Plaintiff has a disability. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to exclude her report and opinion. The Plaintiff’s complaint in this cause was dismissed with prejudice by the Court.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant’s motion exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Ticonna Purdle.

    Key Takeaway:

    Bernice McLaurin’s lawsuit against the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) for racial discrimination and disability discrimination was ultimately dismissed. The Court granted the VAMC’s motion to exclude the expert testimony of McLaurin’s nursing expert, Ticonna Purdle, because Purdle’s own deposition testimony revealed that the Plaintiff has not been diagnosed with any respiratory condition, and the medical records do not otherwise tend to demonstrate the existence of a disability based on Plaintiff’s alleged respiratory symptoms. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: McLaurin V. McDonough
    Docket Number: 3:23cv281
    Court: United States District Court, Mississippi Southern
    Order Date: February 13, 2025
  • Nursing Expert Witness’ Opinion Addressing Medical Causation Excluded

    Nursing Expert Witness’ Opinion Addressing Medical Causation Excluded

    Plaintiff, Prunella Banks filed this medical negligence action against Lakeland Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC (“Lakeland”) and one of its nurses, Morgan McGuire, for injuries allegedly suffered by her late mother, Queen Banks during her short residency at the nursing home from April 21, 2021, to May 3, 2021.

    According to the Complaint, Nurse McGuire applied “Biofreeze gel” to Banks’ shoulders on April 30, 2021, left the gel in the room, and thereafter, a personal care assistant entered the room and “began rubbing the gel all over Queen Banks’ body including her inner thighs and private part areas.” Banks alleged her mother suffered extreme pain and irritation as a result of this event, necessitating medical treatment.

    Plaintiff’s version of events has changed since filing the Complaint, and Plaintiff now claims that McGuire herself misapplied Elidel 1% Cream (not Biofreeze gel) on Banks’ vagina and rectum, resulting in damages.

    Plaintiff retained a nursing expert, Lotashia Patrick, to offer opinions such as Lakeland’s staff misapplied the medication to Banks’ “private areas,” causing her “burning, itching, and irritation of her vaginal area.” 

    At her deposition, Patrick also testified that the medication was misapplied to Banks’ “groin and buttocks” so as to cause her “second-degree burns” and associated pain. Lakeland argued that Patrick cannot offer opinions about Lakeland’s standard of care, any breach of it, or medical causation.

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Lotashia Patrick, MSN, APRN, PMHNP-BC is a certified and licensed
    advanced practice registered nurse.

    Nurse Patrick received both a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Nursing at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi. Nurse Patrick is a member of the American Nurses Association and the Mississippi Nurses Association & Eliza Pillars Registered Nurses of Mississippi. She has over fifteen (15) years of practice experience in the field of nursing.

    Get the full story on challenges to Lotashia Patrick’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Identifying the Standard of Care

    According to Lakeland, Patrick can’t testify about its standard of care because she lacks sufficient experience working at a nursing home, evaluating chemical burns, assessing skin breakdown, or applying the medication at issue in this case (Elidel). Banks counters that Patrick worked two months as a supervisor over the RNs at a nursing home and that her credentials qualify her to testify to the standard of care. 

    Banks offered Patrick for the opinion that applying Elidel in a manner contrary to its manufacturer’s recommendations would violate the standard of care. According to the Court, this is not an opinion that requires the level of particularized expertise Lakeland suggests. Whether a medication is correctly administered lies within the area of nursing practice. And Patrick’s education and experience in various nursing jobs qualifies her to offer this opinion.

    Moreover, none of the cases Lakeland cited said that the relevant nursing standard changed from one type of facility to the other, and Lakeland did not show that Patrick was unqualified to supervise nurses at a nursing home.

    Breach of the Standard of Care

    Although Patrick can testify about the standard of care, Lakeland has shown that she lacks sufficient facts to testify about whether Lakeland’s staff did breach that standard by misapplying the Elidel.

    Patrick looked at various records and one deposition to render her opinions. But as to her breach opinion, Patrick testified that she relied on the allegations in the complaint.

    The Court granted Lakeland’s motion to exclude Patrick’s opinion that the facility incorrectly administered the medication to Banks. Patrick can opine that if the medication was applied other than as directed by the manufacturer, then a breach of the standard of care occurred.

    Medical Causation

    To the extent that Patrick in her deposition said or implied that the Elidel caused second-degree burns or other severe injuries to body parts for which Elidel is not contraindicated, the Court held that those opinions went beyond the scope of a nursing expert and are thus inadmissible.

    Held

    The Court denied in part Lakeland’s motion, insofar as Patrick may offer opinions at trial about what standard of care applied to Lakeland’s administration of topical medication to Banks and whether any application to areas contraindicated for that medication would violate the standard of care. Any other opinions from Patrick, including those alleging breach or addressing medical causation, are excluded.

    Key Takeaway:

    • Rule 702 does not mandate that an expert be highly qualified in order to testify about a given issue. Differences in expertise bear chiefly on the weight to be assigned to the testimony by the trier of fact, not its admissibility.
    • Under Rule 702(b), experts must base opinions “on sufficient facts or data.” Allegations in a complaint fail that test. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Banks V. Lakeland Nursing And Rehabilitation Center, Llc Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:22cv433
    Court: United States District Court, Mississippi Southern
    Order Date: February 6, 2025
  • Nursing Expert Witness’ Opinions on the Propriety of Treatment Recommendations Admitted

    Nursing Expert Witness’ Opinions on the Propriety of Treatment Recommendations Admitted

    This matter stems from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 21, 2023 when the vehicle driven by Plaintiff, Juwan Brown, and occupied by his parents, Clarence and Tawanna Brown, was struck by a commercial vehicle driven by Dashawn Brooks.

    The commercial vehicle was owned by Penske Truck Leasing Co. and leased by Defendant Mayflower Laundry & Linen. As a result of the accident, Plaintiffs have alleged that they have sustained various injuries and damages.

    Defendants retained Lynda Kopishke “to provide a rebuttal report in response to the reports of Plaintiffs’ life care planning experts.” In her reports, Kopishke opined on the medical necessity of treatment that is recommended by Plaintiffs’ medical and vocational consultants and included in the life care plan for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs argued that Kopishke’s opinions are “well beyond the scope of her expertise.”

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Lynda Kopishke, DL, MSN, RN received her diploma in Nursing from St. Francis Hospital School of Nursing in Wilmington, Delaware. After several years of successful practice, Kopishke attended Wilmington University, where she obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Nursing degree. At Widener University School of Law, Kopishke received her Doctorate of Laws in Health Care Policy.  She has served on various nursing boards at both the local and national levels. Kopishke’s practice settings include adult and neonatal intensive care, home health nursing, rehabilitation, Legal Nurse Consulting, and infusion therapy. 

    Get the full story on challenges to Lynda Kopishke’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs focused on the qualification element of Rule 702, arguing that Kopishke, although she is a qualified nurse and life care planner, is not qualified to offer opinions related to the propriety of treatment recommendations because she is not a physician.

    However, the Court held that she holds bachelor of science and master of science degrees in nursing, and a doctor of laws in health care policy. She has worked as an interim care and direct care nurse, providing skilled nursing assessments for home health clients and acted as a manager supervising workers in a home health agency, worked as a rehabilitation specialist and nursing supervisor, and has been a nursing instructor for fifteen years. In addition, she has worked as a consultant for attorneys and insurers, providing medical expertise including in the area of life care planning. Although she may not be the most qualified to offer an opinion on the necessity of future treatments, procedures, and services, that is a matter of weight for the jury to determine.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude the testimony of Lynda Kopishke.

    Key Takeaway:

    Kopishke has extensive experience as a rehabilitation specialist and nursing supervisor. Despite her lack of a medical degree, the Court refused to exclude her opinion on the medical necessity of treatment that is recommended by Plaintiffs’ medical and vocational consultants.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Brown Et Al V. Brooks Et Al
    Docket Number: 5:23cv2966
    Court: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
    Order Date: November 05, 2024
  • Pulmonary Disease Expert Witness’ Opinions on the Reliability of the DOH Investigations are Barred

    Pulmonary Disease Expert Witness’ Opinions on the Reliability of the DOH Investigations are Barred

    Plaintiff Lori LaRock filed a medical malpractice and negligence against Albany County Nursing Home (“ACNH”), the County of Albany, Larry Slatky, Debbie Gossman, Rhonda Lyga, and John and Jane Does #1-5 (collectively “Defendants”).

    Plaintiff asserted that she and her family often found Sanford unfed, unbathed, ungroomed, and covered in his own urine and vomit. On February 24, 2018, about a week prior to Sanford’s passing, LaRock noticed a change in her father: he seemed lethargic; was coughing more than usual; and his breathing sounded raspy. 

    On March 1, 2018, LaRock, after receiving a voicemail message from Gossman regarding Sanford’s condition, went to the nursing home, where she found her father “laying unattended in his room in agony,” “drenched in sweat,” “violently gasping for air,” with “an oxygen tube hanging from his nose.”

    LaRock called 911, and, according to “contemporaneous records from emergency paramedics,” Sanford was “found laying in the hospital bed unresponsive in obvious respiratory failure near respiratory arrest, was pale and sweating excessively, and was in need of immediate airway support.”

    Sanford was transferred to Albany Medical Center, where doctors assessed that he “likely aspirated on his own vomit,” and “medical care was too late.” Sanford passed away on March 3, 2018 of aspiration pneumonia.

    Plaintiff sought to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Defendants’ experts, Steven Salzman and Beth Anne Maas.

    Pulmonary Disease Expert Witness

    Steven Henry Salzman has over 35 years of experience in the fields of Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine. He is board-certified in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, Critical Care Medicine and Sleep Medicine. Salzman held the position of Chief, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, NYU Winthrop Hospital in Mineola, Long Island, NY. He received his medical degree from New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

    Get the full story on challenges to Steven Henry Salzman’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Beth Anne Maas graduated from Thomas Jefferson University with a Bachelor of Science Nursing. She received a Master’s in Health Administration degree from Saint Joseph’s University. Her professional concentration has been long-term care since graduating in 1988.

    Want to know more about the challenges Beth Anne Maas has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Steven Salzman

    Parties’ Position

    Plaintiff sought to prohibit Steven Salzman from 1) offering legal conclusions, 2) testifying as to ACNH’s staff training or the Department of Health’s investigation, and 3) offering unreliable opinions.

    Defendants 1) agreed that experts may not offer legal conclusions but 2) argued that Salzman’s experience as a physician qualified him to testify as to the contested topics and 3) asserted that Salzman’s testimony is thoroughly reliable because it is based on a wider set of considerations and data than Plaintiff’s experts.

    Legal Conclusions

    First, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s cited opinions in Salzman’s expert report illustrated Salzman offering a legal conclusion, and thus, ruled that they are barred from being elicited during his testimony. In the expert report, Salzman asserted that “the staff at the Albany County Nursing Home was not deliberately indifferent to the needs of Sanford,” and that he has “seen no evidence to demonstrate there was a persistent and widespread pattern and practice of violating Sanford or any other residents’ rights.” 

    Such statements “track the exact language” of the legal issues at issue in this case, and thus, they “couch his opinions in terms that derive their definitions from judicial interpretations.” Salzman’s statements in the expert report also relied on “his assessment of the testimony and credibility of other witnesses” and are “not based on personal knowledge.”  Therefore, they constituted legal conclusions, rather than factual conclusions, which must be excluded. To the extent the Salzman offered further potential legal conclusions in his testimony, the Court reserved judgment.

    Qualifications

    Salzman is a pulmonary and critical care physician, a “general field” which is closely related to the subject of running an effective medical facility, including staff training and the use of SBAR strategies. Indeed, this Court is hesitant to impose “an overly narrow test of Salzman’s qualifications,” particularly where his opinion as a physician with a sub-specialty in critical care might at least provide some assistance to the jury in determining the factual issues.

    So long as Salzman “explains how his experience leads to the conclusions he reaches, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts,” the Court will not exclude his testimony on staff training or the use of SBAR strategies due to a lack of expertise.

    The Court barred certain opinions highlighted by Plaintiff in which Salzman opines on the appropriateness of the ACNH’s policies and the thoroughness or reliability of the DOH investigation.  For instance, his opinion that the “policies in place at the ACNH were appropriate” appears to rely entirely on the fact that “the DOH did not request that any policies be altered, modified or changed in any way.” 

    The Court held that such opinions are mere regurgitations of “facts that the jury is ‘fully capable of understanding” and “offer nothing more than what ‘lawyers representing [Defendants] could provide during their closing arguments’” and thus must be excluded.

    Beth Anne Maas

    Plaintiff argued that Defendants’ Nursing Expert Beth Anne Maas should be precluded from testifying on medical diagnosis or causation, DOH investigatory policies, procedures, and findings, and legal conclusions.

    The Court agrees with the parties that Maas may not offer opinions on causation or legal conclusions but reserves its decision on whether Maas’ testimony on the DOH investigation is permissible as reliant on her professional experiences.

    Legal Conclusions

    The Court precluded Maas precluded from testifying as to whether the ACNH was “deliberately indifferent” to Sanford, whether a “pattern and practice of violating Sanford or any other residents’ rights” exists, and whether staffing levels “violated New York State regulations.” The cited portions of the report explicitly state ultimate legal conclusions using language which “couches her opinions in terms that derive their definitions from judicial interpretations.”

    Causation

    The Court agreed that medical causation is outside of a nurse’s expertise, and therefore, found Maas may not testify as to the causes of Sanford’s death. Moreover, Maas may not simply restate findings which can be independently introduced by Defendants through other evidence.

    As to the testimony regarding the DOH investigation, the Court finds that in the portions of the report cited by Plaintiff, Maas is not merely referencing the record in front of her, as Defendants asserted. Instead, Maas appears to be expressing independent opinions based on the record. However, as provided in the report, such opinions heavily regurgitate “facts that the jury is ‘fully capable of understanding’” and do not explicitly state any other basis for the opinions. For this reason, they must be excluded unless Maas can adequately tie her conclusions to her personal or professional experiences. 

    The Court reserved judgment on the admissibility of Maas’ various opinions until they are presented at trial but warned that such opinions may not concern medical causation or offer legal conclusions. Additionally, to the extent Maas’ testimony involved repeating facts established by other witnesses for purposes of summary or explanation, the Court will hear objections as to whether that testimony is needlessly cumulative and should be excluded per FRE 403.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Defendants’ experts, Steven Salzman and Beth Anne Maas.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Certain opinions offered by Salzman offer his own assessment of the record unmoored from any expertise. 
    • Testimony merely restating the facts which can be presented independently through other evidence will be barred and expert witnesses may not be offered as mere summarizers.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Larock V. Albany County Nursing Home Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:19cv604
    Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
    Order Date: October 24, 2024
  • Social Work Expert Witness’ Testimony Explaining the Dynamics of Domestic Violence Admitted

    Social Work Expert Witness’ Testimony Explaining the Dynamics of Domestic Violence Admitted

    Defendant Michael Johnson is charged with the following: unlawful imprisonment, assault of a domestic partner by strangulation and suffocation, interstate domestic violence, witness tampering, and assault.

    Johnson claimed that the Government has not filed a notice to call Holly Rosen, provided her curriculum vitae, a statement of her expected testimony, or the basis and methodology for her opinion. Johnson argued that, in any event, both Holly Rosen and Kelly Berishaj’s testimony is more prejudicial than probative, and therefore should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence, and unduly encroaches on the jury’s function to determine credibility issues.

    Social Work Expert Witness

    Holly Rosen has experience as an expert or opinion witness for family and criminal cases involving domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking victimization cases; adult and child victims. Certified as a licensed social worker with a LMSW since 1987, she has spent over forty years working with two domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault programs.

    Get the full story on challenges to Holly Rosen’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Kelly Berishaj’s teaching, service, practice, and scholarship focus is in the specialty of forensic nursing. Berishaj has been a faculty member in the School of Nursing at Oakland University since 2007 and was instrumental in the development and implementation of the graduate forensic nursing program.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Holly Rosen

    The Government did file a notice summarizing Rosen’s proposed testimony on July 12, 2022, and provided subsequent updates. As reflected, Rosen’s testimony is expected to explain the dynamics of domestic violence to the jury, such as explaining why victims may act inconsistently, including engaging in self-blame, concealing the abuse from others, reconciling with the abuser, delay reporting abuse, and staying with the abuser. Rosen also will testify regarding batterer tactics. Rosen will not opine on whether the victim in this case, C.J. is a victim of domestic violence.

    To the extent Johnson intends to challenge the veracity of C.J.’s testimony based on any of these typical victim behaviors—as happened at the initial trial—the Court held that Rosen’s testimony is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Such testimony, as the Government sets out in its response brief, is routinely admitted in trials involving domestic violence, including in Johnson’s first trial here. If, however, Johnson did not attack the veracity of her testimony through this manner, the Court may conclude that Rosen’s testimony is not relevant.

    At this time, however, the Court is denying Johnson’s motion to preclude this testimony.

    Kelly Berishaj

    The Government is planning to present Berishaj as an expert in forensic nursing to testify regarding strangulation and strangulation injuries. She will explain to the jury such things as what strangulation is, the methods of strangulation, and the difference between suffocation and strangulation. The Court held that this evidence is relevant, as Johnson is charged with inter alia strangulation and suffocation of C.J. In conclusion, It is not unduly prejudicial.

    Held

    The Court is denied Michael Johnson’s motion to preclude the Government’s expert witnesses, Holly Rosen and Kelly Berishaj from testifying at trial.

    Key Takeaway:

    If the case involves domestic violence, testimony about the dynamics of domestic violence to the jury, such as explaining why victims may act inconsistently, including engaging in self-blame, concealing the abuse from others, reconciling with the abuser, delay reporting abuse, and staying with the abuser is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. So is testimony explaining what strangulation is, the methods of strangulation, and the difference between suffocation and strangulation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: United States of America v. Johnson
    Docket Number: 1:18cr20794
    Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
    Order Date: October 25, 2024