Filed: Mar. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Medical Testimony (Doc. # 60), which was filed on February 21, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. # 69) on February 29, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion. Analysis Defendant seeks an order barring Jeffrey George, M.D., Plaintiff's treating physician, from offering testimony at trial. Defendant argues that Pl
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Medical Testimony (Doc. # 60), which was filed on February 21, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. # 69) on February 29, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion. Analysis Defendant seeks an order barring Jeffrey George, M.D., Plaintiff's treating physician, from offering testimony at trial. Defendant argues that Pla..
More
ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Medical Testimony (Doc. # 60), which was filed on February 21, 2012. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. # 69) on February 29, 2012. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the Motion.
Analysis
Defendant seeks an order barring Jeffrey George, M.D., Plaintiff's treating physician, from offering testimony at trial. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to disclose Dr. George as an expert and also asserts that Dr. George's testimony will be irrelevant to the issues set for disposition at trial.
Plaintiff responded to the Motion by indicating that he plans to call Dr. George as his treating physician and not as an expert witness: "Neither his diagnosis nor his recommendations constitute expert testimony from Dr. George." (Doc. # 69 at 1). In this ADA case, Plaintiff contends that he has bi-polar disorder, a condition which jurors may not recognize or understand. This Court determines that a physician, particularly, Plaintiff's treating physician, is the proper conduit for relaying this information to the jury. On balance, it appears that Plaintiff intends to utilize Dr. George as a lay witness. Plaintiff's plan is consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Wilson v. Taser, Int'l, Inc., 303 F. App'x 708, 712 (11th Cir. 2008) that "a treating physician may testify as a lay witness regarding his observations and decisions during treatment of a patient [but] once the treating physician expresses an opinion unrelated to treatment, which is based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, that witness is offering expert testimony for which the court must perform its essential gatekeeping function." (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original).1
Thus, the Court will not strike Dr. George as requested by Defendant. Instead, the Court will limit Dr. George's testimony to his observations and decisions during treatment of Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Medical Testimony (Doc. # 60) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
