Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Jail

  • 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
  • Emergency Medicine Expert’s Testimony on Jail Policies Admitted

    Emergency Medicine Expert’s Testimony on Jail Policies Admitted

    Jeff Trevillion, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Louis Perales,
    deceased (“the Estate”), filed a claim for cruel and unusual punishment against the arresting officer and the jail staff in their individual capacities, and Sheriff Scott Owen (“Owen”) in his official capacity as Sheriff of Washington County, Oklahoma.

    The Estate alleged that the Defendants’ policy of placing intoxicated inmates into holding cells until they “sobered up” constituted a deliberate indifference to Louis Perales’ serious medical needs.

    Owen filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Michael Jobin, M.D., an expert witness called by by the Estate.

    Emergency Medicine Expert Witness

    Michael J. Jobin, M.D., has been employed as a board-certified emergency room physician throughout his career, during which he has evaluated intoxicated patients and provided medical clearance examinations for patients in law enforcement custody. In that role, Jobin regularly decided whether arrestees who were intoxicated with alcohol or other drugs were fit for incarceration. 

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Jobin is qualified to testify as an expert

    Owen argued that Jobin is not qualified to testify as an expert about either Perales’ medical needs or the jail staff’s actions and policies regarding intoxicated inmates because Jobin lacked specialized training in cardiovascular diseases or drug intoxication and has never worked in a jail or provided medical care in a jail setting. 

    However, Jobin is a board-certified emergency room physician who has provided medical clearances for patients in law enforcement custody throughout his career. 

    Jobin served on the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners, where he reviewed complaints made by prisoners about the medical care they received while in prison. 

    Jobin has previously served as an expert witness in cases in which he testified about inmates and medical care. In those instances, he was asked to review the basic emergency care policies of jail facilities, which he evaluated relative to the jail’s medical capabilities. In this case, he intended to offer his opinion that adequate medical evaluation procedures and emergency medical treatment for acute intoxication would have prevented Perales’ death by ensuring he was treated and monitored in a hospital.

    Further, while Jobin has not worked in a jail and is not trained regarding jail policies, his proposed testimony covers only whether the jail’s policies followed “normal medical practice” for an emergency setting, one which he compares to a “low-level emergency department.”

    The Court held that Jobin’s testimony on the jail’s policies is limited to his opinions about proper emergency medical policies and practices, and is therefore within the reasonable confines of his forty-five years of expertise in emergency medicine, including working as an emergency medicine professor and physician in multiple hospitals’ emergency departments and evaluating the medical needs of arrestees.

    Jobin’s opinions are reliable

    Owen argued that the expert opinions Jobin offered are unreliable because they are not based on sufficient facts or data and because some of the materials that he considered were unreliable.

    Jobin reviewed the following facts to reach his opinion: Perales’ medical records, which included the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation report, ambulance records, and autopsy report; Perales’ jail records; the jail’s general policies; the jail’s policies relating to Perales; the police body camera footage from Perales’ arrest showing the EMTs attempting to take Perales’ blood pressure; the officers’ deposition testimony that Perales was cleared in the field for transport to the jail but without formal paperwork; and the jail video showing Perales flailing his arms in the holding cell. From these materials, Jobin concluded that adequate emergency medical care and procedures likely would have prevented Perales’ death. 

    The Court is persuaded that the facts that Jobin examined to develop his expert opinion are sufficient, even if not exhaustive. Jobin relied on his decades of experience in emergency medicine in assessing whether the facts showed that adequate procedures were in place to care for Perales.

    Jobin may not render legal opinions

    Owen argued that Jobin’s statement in his deposition that Perales’ death was caused by “deliberate indifference” is a legal opinion that Jobin is not qualified to offer.

    During his deposition, Jobin testified that he thought there was “deliberate indifference” in the jail’s actions in this case because the jail staff did not show proper regard to Perales’ well-being. Jobin admitted that he did not know an exact legal definition of “deliberate indifference,” and that he learned this phrase from another case in which he served as an expert.

    “Deliberate indifference” is an ultimate issue of law in this case, and its use by a witness would likely confuse the jury as to its role.

    As a result, the Court precluded Jobin from using the phrase “deliberate indifference” in his testimony.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Scott Owen’s motion to exclude the testimony of witness Dr. Michael Jobin.

    Key Takeaway:

    Jobin’s opinions are within the “reasonable confines of his subject area” of emergency medicine. His experience as an emergency room physician means that he is familiar with standard emergency medicine procedures and how to treat common conditions. Even if Jobin is not an expert in cardiology or drug intoxication specifically, he has made assessments about whether arrestees are fit for incarceration or need medical treatment outside of the place of incarceration. This necessarily involves assessing whether an arrestee’s medical condition will become dangerous if not treated in an acute care setting.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Trevillion V. Owen Et Al
    Docket Number: 4:22cv473
    Court Name: United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern
    Order Date: October 10, 2025
  • Corrections Expert Barred from Testifying on Nurse’s Medical Decisions

    Corrections Expert Barred from Testifying on Nurse’s Medical Decisions

    Johnathan Maskiell and John Daulton were placed together in a small “isolation” cell. Maskiell stomped and beat sixty-one-year-old Daulton into a coma. Daulton died from his injuries on May 21, 2023. Maskiell has since pled guilty to Daulton’s murder.

    The Plaintiff, Tonya Jones as Administratrix of John Daulton’s estate, filed suit against the Kenton County Detention Center, Deputy Kristen Wehrer, and Deputy Jared  Capps alleging multiple constitutional violations.

    Kenton County filed a motion to exclude or limit Gary Maynard‘s testimony.

    Corrections Expert Witness

    Gary Maynard is a corrections consultant with over 45 years’ experience. He has served in the correctional field as the head of four state departments of corrections across the country since 1987, including Oklahoma, South Carolina, Iowa, and Maryland.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Opinion 1

    Maynard’s first contested group of opinions concerns whether: (1) Deputy Kristin Wehrer “fraudulently” and “recklessly” filled out an inmate intake assessment form; (2) Wehrer’s actions comport with accepted jail corrections practices; (3) Wehrer’s actions “set in motion the events that led to” Daulton’s death; and (4) the Kenton County Detention Center (“KCDC”) failed to provide safe housing for Daulton.

    Although testimony using terms like “fraud” and “recklessness” could imply legal conclusions about Wehrer’s liability, the Court, however, ruled that Maynard is allowed to testify about whether, in his expert opinion, Wehrer’s actions or omissions related to the intake assessment form did not meet accepted practices in jail corrections. The Court found that this opinion is based on Maynard’s professional experience and could help the jury understand the standards and whether they were followed in this case.

    Opinion 2

    Kenton County challenged Maynard’s opinions regarding KCDC’s policies on information collection and use. 

    The Court held that Maynard’s claims that Daulton was held in conditions that posed a serious risk of harm, and that Capps and Wehrer knew about this risk but ignored it, are essentially legal conclusions presented as if they were factual opinions.

    The Court ruled that Maynard cannot testify about Maskiell’s health records. Additionally, in line with its earlier decisions, the Court will not permit Maynard to testify that KCDC’s practices “lead to a failure to protect inmates and staff,” because such a statement touches on legal issues that were already dismissed in Jones’ claims against Capps and Wehrer.

    However, Maynard will be allowed to give his opinion that KCDC’s use of JailTracker and its alert system does not meet generally accepted practices for gathering inmate information in jails. This opinion is within his area of expertise and could help the jury decide whether the jail’s lack of training or supervision contributed to Daulton’s death.

    Opinion 3

    Maynard criticized KCDC for allegedly relying too heavily on New Vista staff and their placement decisions, especially given the lack of available information about limited isolation cells and the absence of direct observation of inmates. He argued that the way New Vista’s system was implemented at KCDC went against generally accepted correctional practices—but this is not the same as saying that simply using New Vista was inappropriate.

    Maynard’s report also suggested that he believes Nurse Whitney Price recommended Daulton should be cleared for the jail’s general population based on her personal familiarity with him—not because she was making a formal mental health evaluation. Maynard will be allowed to testify that it goes against best practices for jail staff to blindly follow off-site placement decisions from New Vista when jail staff may be in a better position to assess an inmate’s safety. However, he will not be allowed to testify that Nurse Price’s decision to clear Daulton for the general population amounted to medical advice, as Maynard is not qualified to evaluate her medical judgment.

    Opinion 4

    Maynard tries to offer an opinion about what Capps knew or should have known, but this goes beyond his expertise in jail operations and wouldn’t be helpful to the jury.

    He also claims that KCDC’s failure to conduct timely cell checks “contributed to the death of John Daulton.” The Court has excluded this statement because it takes away the jury’s role in deciding whether Wehrer’s actions were the legal cause of Daulton’s death.

    While Maynard cannot simply repeat that the cell checks were inadequate, he is allowed to explain why frequent cell checks are important for inmates in isolation. He may also testify that ongoing failures to perform these checks violate accepted correctional practices. These opinions are based on his professional experience and may help the jury assess whether jail staff were properly supervised.

    Opinion 5

    The Court will allow Maynard to testify about best practices for managing inmates placed in isolation cells. In the first part of his opinion, Maynard discusses the fact that KCDC had only four isolation cells compared to its total number of beds and that the facility had the authority to repurpose unused cells for isolation if needed. His view that KCDC’s approach was rigid and did not align with accepted correctional standards is permitted, as it is based on his experience in jail operations and may help the jury evaluate whether KCDC staff were properly trained or supervised.

    However, Maynard will not be allowed to offer opinions about what Capps should have done. The Court found that such testimony would improperly suggest what might have happened if Capps had acted differently, which is a decision the jury must make when determining legal causation (proximate cause).

    Opinion 6

    Maynard stated in his opinion that “KCDC has exhibited a policy of inadequate training and supervision; and a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations.” Kenton County argued that Maynard is not qualified to make this claim because he had no factual basis—he didn’t review any records about the training deputies actually received, and therefore can’t assess whether the training met jail standards.

    More importantly, the Court found that these statements are improper because they directly accuse Kenton County of breaking the law. Deciding whether the County violated the law is a legal judgment that must be made by the jury, not an expert witness.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude certain oipnions of Gary Maynard.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court found that Maynard’s testimony might help the jury decide whether the jail’s lack of training or supervision contributed to Daulton’s death. Therefore, the Court chose not to completely exclude his testimony.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Jones V. Kenton County, Kentucky Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:23cv164
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division
    Order Date: June 09, 2025