Plaintiff William A. White (“White”), a federal inmate, initiated this action alleging nine distinct claims against the United States of America (“United States”) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”), and two distinct claims against BOP inmate Robert Kenneth Decker (“Decker”).
Dr. Richard M. Samuels conducted an independent psychological examination of White. The Federal Defendants filed a motion to strike Dr. Samuels’ report.
Psychology Expert Witness
Richard M. Samuels has nearly fifty years of medical experience. He has conducted 2,500 psychological evaluations, treated thousands of patients, and testified in several states.
He is licensed in Arizona and New Jersey and is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and two of its divisions.
The Federal Defendants argued that Samuels is not qualified to be an expert, the report is outdated, and this report is neither helpful nor based on sufficient facts related to the issues in this case.
As to the first step, the Court found the Federal Defendants’ argument unconvincing. Samuels is a trained psychologist who had been licensed at one time in two different states, giving him general expertise regarding the issue of standard of care for White’s mental health needs. He need not be a specialist in Indiana or hold active registration as a psychologist to render his report useful.
Moreover, Samuels’ medical opinion is not based on ‘junk science’, but almost fifty years of medical experience. The Federal Defendants pointed out that Samuels is not registered with the American Board of Psychology, however, both the Middle District of Florida and Middle District of Pennsylvania accepted Samuels’ testimony and ruled him qualified to provide an expert opinion.
Due to his specific knowledge of the circumstances and experience in the field, Samuels’ testimony and report will assist the Court in understanding the evidence and in determining the facts at issue in this case.
Held
The Court denied the Federal Defendants’ motion to strike Dr. Richard Samuels’ report.
Key Takeaway
Anyone with relevant expertise enabling him to offer responsible opinion testimony helpful to judge or jury may qualify as an expert witness. In this case, Samuels has established that he has specialized knowledge as required by Rule 702.
This medical negligence lawsuit stems from injuries Fitzgerald sustained after he allegedly developed compartment syndrome in his right leg while hospitalized at St. Anthony Summit Medical Center (“Summit”) after a snowboarding accident in January 2019.
Fitzgerald claimed that the delayed diagnosis and treatment of his compartment syndrome by his healthcare providers, Dr. Xan Courville and P.A. Sarah Pfeiffer, resulted in permanent nerve damage in his leg and continuous, intense pain. He further asserts that Summit’s negligence in staff training and policy implementation contributed to his lasting injury.
Fitzgerald sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in August 2020 after a fall from a three-story roof in the building. It is seemingly agreed that he was “under the influence of a self-medicating substance”—identified by his experts as Ketamine—at the time of the fall. In January 2021, Fitzgerald initiated legal action, claiming that the fall and subsequent TBI were a consequence of his nerve injury. He alleges this nerve injury stemmed from Dr. Courville and P.A. Pfeiffer’s delayed diagnosis and treatment of his compartment syndrome.
In March 2025, Summit moved to exclude the following testimony of Robert Jamison: “It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty that, more likely than not, the injuries flowing from the delayed treatment of Fitzgerald’s compartment syndrome-related injuries to his leg were a cause of and a contributing factor to his fall and traumatic [sic] brain injury.”
Psychology Expert Witness
Robert Newlin Jamison is a clinical psychologist. He received a Ph.D. in psychology from the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London; completed multiple internships in clinical psychology; completed a post-doctoral fellowship at Vanderbilt Medical Center; and has practiced at Brigham and Women’s Hospital Pain Management Center for 35 years.
Jamison is a Professor at Harvard Medical School with appointments in the Departments of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Psychiatry, and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Summit did not move to exclude Jamison as an expert witness altogether, instead making clear that it “has no objection to [him] offering opinions regarding the treatment of Joseph Fitzgerald’s chronic pain or his present condition following the fall from the third-floor building roof.”
Summit contended, rather, that Jamison is not qualified and has not employed a reliable methodology to opine on the medical cause of Fitzgerald’s TBI.
Qualification
The cause of Fitzgerald’s TBI calls for a medical opinion. But Jamison is not a medical doctor. Despite Jamison’s notable credentials, the Court finds that he lacks the necessary qualifications under the Daubert standard to offer an expert opinion on the medical cause of Fitzgerald’s TBI. Specifically, he is not qualified to provide expert testimony that “Fitzgerald’s compartment syndrome-related injuries to his leg were a cause of and a contributing factor to his fall and traumatic [sic] brain injury.”
Arguing otherwise, Fitzgerald insisted that “Jamison is overwhelmingly qualified to offer causation opinions on the treatments of chronic pain; that chronic pain can lead to self-medicating behavior; and that self-medicating behavior can be harmful.”
Contrary to Fitzgerald’s first assertion, however, Jamison’s proffered testimony does not simply connect Fitzgerald’s chronic pain to his self-medicating behavior (i.e., his Ketamine use), the fall, and ultimately, the TBI. It goes several steps further and posits that “the injuries flowing from the delayed treatment of Fitzgerald’s compartment syndrome-related injuries to his leg were a cause of and a contributing factor to his fall and traumatic injury brain injury.” The Court determined that this type of testimony regarding medical causation falls outside Jamison’s area of expertise.
Moreover, Jamison’s CV made no mention of experience personally dealing with compartment syndrome, and Jamison confirmed during his deposition that he had merely “heard about compartment syndrome and heard about a lot of accidents and also surgeries and failed surgeries that contributed to complications.”
Methodology
Jamison prepared two reports following his virtual meetings with Fitzgerald and his parents.
Therein, Jamison notes—and Fitzgerald emphasizes—that he reached his causation opinion based on Fitzgerald’s medical records, his meetings with Fitzgerald, and by reviewing the reports prepared by other experts in this case.
The Court concluded that Jamison’s methodology was unreliable, notably because he apparently failed to expressly conduct a differential analysis before opining that “the injuries flowing from the delayed treatment of Fitzgerald’s compartment syndrome-related injuries to his leg were a cause of and a contributing factor to his fall and traumatic [sic] brain injury.”
Moreover, Jamison’s report does not show that he “eliminat[ed] alternative causes when employing a ‘differential analysis.’” To reiterate, “[d]ifferential analysis, which is the process of reasoning to the best inference, requires that the expert provide objective reasons for eliminating alternative causes.”
The Court pointed out that while the report briefly mentions Fitzgerald’s Ketamine use on the day he fell, it lacks any “objective reasons” explaining why this wasn’t a possible cause of the fall.
Summit contended, backed by expert testimony, that “the post-[snowboarding] accident injuries are the result of unrelated ‘traction’ or ‘stretch’ injury.” In contrast, the Court noted that Jamison’s report completely ignores these other possibilities and offers no arguments against their potential role.
Held
The Court granted the motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiff Joseph Fitzgerald’s expert witness, Robert Jamison, Ph.D.
Key Takeaway:
The Court sees little to no record evidence suggesting that Fitzgerald could lay a proper foundation at trial that Jamison is qualified to testify that the allegedly delayed diagnosis and treatment of Fitzgerald’s compartment syndrome led to his TBI.
Moreover, the courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork. Given the deficiencies outlined above regarding Jamison’s causation opinions, the Court is not convinced that he would be able “to reliably defend his conclusion at trial.”
Case Details:
Case Caption:
Fitzgerald Et Al V. Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado Et Al
