Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants related to a civil rights claim. The plaintiff hired a Pulmonary Medicine Expert Witness to provide testimony. The defendants filed a motion to exclude, which was denied by the court.
Facts: This case (Salvani v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – August 27th, 2019) involves a former inmate at the Florida Department of Corrections who filed this action in violation of his civil rights. The plaintiff alleges that he was injured because the defendant has a policy of saving money at the expense of delivering quality medical care. The plaintiff states that because the defendant did not deliver quality healthcare, he concludes that the defendant violated his civil rights. The plaintiff has hired Dr. Chertoff (Pulmonary Medicine Expert Witness) to provide testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Chertoff.
Discussion: The defendant wishes to exclude Dr. Chertoff’s opinion that prisoners with sepsis have a higher mortality rate than non-prisoners with sepsis and that the defendant was deliberately indifferent in failing to have a custom, practice to provide necessary medical care.
The defendants take issue with Dr. Chertoff’s opinion regarding sepsis because it relies on a prior article that Dr. Chertoff authored and fails to meet any of the thee Daubert standards. The defendants claim that Dr. Chertoff is not qualified, that his opinion is not reliable, and that his opinions will be unhelpful to the jury.
The court opines that the defendants’ argument is not persuasive because it does not contain any reasons as to why Dr. Chertoff’s opinion should be excluded. The court states that the defendants claim mere claim that Dr. Chertoff is unqualified, unreliable, and unhelpful and then they conclude that he his testimony violates Daubert. The court opines that the defendants provide no other reasons that would support their position and that they leave it to the court to determine if the defendants arguments have merit, but the court opines that it has no duty to do the dirty work for the defendants.
In addition, the court denies as moot the defendants argument that Dr. Chertoff should be excluded from offering an opinion as to whether the defendant was deliberately indifferent in failing to have a custom, policy, or practice to provide necessary medical care. The plaintiff notes that it does not intend to use Dr. Chertoff to opine on whether the defendant was deliberately indifferent.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Chertoff is denied.