Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Nursing

  • 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
  • Physical Medicine Expert Witness Fails to Consider Alternate Causes

    Physical Medicine Expert Witness Fails to Consider Alternate Causes

    The personal injury case stemmed from a rear-end collision on August 7, 2019. The Plaintiff, Sarah Ann Stratemeyer filed negligence claims against Kyle Thomas Pliler and his employer, Northstar Construction Management Company, Inc., seeking damages for bodily injuries, loss of e arnings, and loss of ability to earn money. At the time of the accident, Sarah was a nursing student at Renaissance Health Institute. In January 2022, she failed her nursing school exit exam, which she attributed to a mild traumatic brain injury allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. The Plaintiff intended to call two expert witnesses: Dr. Craig H. Lichtblau, a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor, to testify about future medical costs and disabilities, and Dr. Julianne Frain, a vocational rehabilitation expert, to discuss limitations on the Plaintiff’s future ability to work.

    Defendants requested that the Court prohibit Lichtblau and Frain from testifying about Plaintiff’s pre-incident intellectual and cognitive functioning and Plaintiff’s inability to pass her nursing school exit examination as a result of the 2019 accident.

    Defendants attacked the testimony on three bases: (1) neither expert is qualified to opine on these matters; (2) the experts’ testimony is ipse dixit, unreliable, and unsupported by facts or evidence; and (3) the testimony would confuse the jury. 

    Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness

    Dr. Julianne Frain is a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor, Certified Life Care Planner, and Diplomate with the American Board of Vocational Experts. She is typically hired in the areas of vocational rehabilitation, life care planning, or both concentrations combined. Dr. Frain has 15 years of experience handling claims within various forms of injury and family law matters. She renders opinions on vocational assessment, disability, pre-and-post incident earning capacity, re-employment, rehabilitation, and life care planning. Additionally, she provides insights on the usual and customary costs of medical care.

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

    Physical Medicine Expert Witness

    Dr. Craig H. Lichtblau specializes in physical medicine and rehabilitation, focusing on medical functional capacity and impairment levels. His areas of expertise include disability evaluations, chronic pain management and defining impairment, disability and cost for future medical care.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Julianne Frain

    Frain, a vocational rehabilitation expert, provided testimony based on her evaluation of the Plaintiff and review of medical records. She focused on assessing the Plaintiff’s future earning capacity and loss of earning potential following the 2019 accident.

    In her analysis, Frain assumed the Plaintiff would have likely completed her nursing program if the accident had not occurred. She presented this as an assumption rather than a causation opinion. She explicitly stated that she did not have independent medical causation opinions. Instead, she relied on medical records and diagnoses from treating doctors and other medical experts involved in the case.

    During her deposition, Frain initially expressed uncertainty about whether the Plaintiff would have passed the exit exam without the accident. However, she later opined that the 2019 accident was a “contributing factor” and “likely” caused the Plaintiff to fail the examination. Frain declined to offer opinions on the Plaintiff’s pre-accident intellectual or cognitive functioning. She deferred to neuropsychological evaluations for such assessments.

    While not explicitly mentioned in the Court’s analysis, she likely included an assessment of the Plaintiff’s work capacity and potential job options in her report, as is typical for vocational rehabilitation experts.

    Craig Lichtblau

    Lichtblau, an expert in physical medicine and rehabilitation, provided testimony focused on the Plaintiff’s medical functional capacity and level of impairment following the 2019 accident. In his report, he opined that the Plaintiff had the functional capacity to work 8 hours per day on an uninterrupted basis. He recommended “sedentary light” positions and noted that the Plaintiff’s disability would increase as she aged. He also stated that she would suffer from acute, intermittent exacerbations of chronic pain and discomfort. Lichtblau attributed many of the Plaintiff’s current medical conditions to the 2019 incident. He repeatedly stated that her medical issues were “secondary” to the injuries sustained in the accident.

    During his deposition, he described the Plaintiff’s injuries and how they affected her post-accident levels of cognitive functioning. However, he did not directly address her pre-accident intellectual functioning in his report or deposition. Regarding the Plaintiff’s exit examination failure, Lichtblau declined to comment on the likelihood of her passing the exam in the future but stated that it would be “a very difficult road for her” due to her injuries. He did not provide a specific opinion on whether the 2019 accident caused the Plaintiff to fail her exit examination.

    Findings of the Court

    The Court found that both experts failed to properly disclose opinions on the Plaintiff’s pre-accident intellectual functioning and causation for failing the exit exam. This was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(i). The Court emphasized that expert reports must include “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.”

    For Frain, the Court noted that her report did not offer opinions on pre-accident intellectual functioning. She explicitly stated in her deposition that she would not opine on this topic. Regarding the Plaintiff’s failure to pass the exit examination, Frain’s report mentioned the accident as a contributing factor. However, she presented it as an assumption rather than a causation opinion.

    The Court also determined that the Plaintiff failed to adequately refute the Defendants’ arguments in her response. The Plaintiff’s brief focused on general qualifications and methodology rather than addressing the specific topics the Defendant sought to exclude.

    For Lichtblau, in addition to the disclosure issues, the Court conducted a Daubert analysis. It found that his testimony on these topics did not meet the reliability standard. The Court noted a lack of methodology for assessing pre-accident intellectual functioning. It also found a failure to consider alternative causes for the exam failure, such as the low overall passage rate.

    Held

    The Court barred Julianne Frain and Craig Lichtblau from offering opinions on the Plaintiff’s pre-accident intellectual functioning and the causal link between the 2019 accident and her exit exam failure.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Experts must properly disclose all opinions they intend to offer at trial in their reports, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(i).

    2. Parties must adequately respond to and refute opposing arguments in motions, addressing specific points raised rather than making general arguments.

    3. Expert testimony must meet the Daubert standard for reliability, which includes having a sound methodology, considering alternative explanations, and avoiding impermissible analytical leaps.

    4. Courts may exclude expert testimony on specific topics even if the expert is generally qualified in their field, particularly when the expert lacks the necessary basis or methodology for those specific opinions.

    5. Assumptions used in an expert’s analysis should be clearly distinguished from causation opinions.

    6. Failure to consider obvious alternative explanations (such as the low overall passage rate for an exam) can render an expert’s opinion on causation unreliable.

    7. The Court’s gatekeeping role under Daubert is crucial in ensuring that only reliable and relevant expert testimony reaches the jury.  

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Stratemeyer v. Northstar Constr. Mgmt. Co.
    Docket Number: 9:23cv80147
    Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
    Order Date: April 16, 2024