United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Thomas
B. Russell, Senior Judge United States District Court
This
matter comes before the Court upon Motion by Plaintiff
Sherrie Griffey, (“Griffey”), to exclude a
proposed expert witness, Dr. John Grady, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 702. [DN 52.] This matter is ripe for
adjudication and, for the reasons that follow, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Griffey's Motion [DN 52] is DENIED.
A.
Background
1.
Factual & Procedural Background
This
case arises out of the former patient-doctor relationship
between Griffey and one of Defendants, Dr. William Adams,
(“Adams”), a doctor of podiatric medicine who
focuses on foot and ankle problems and is board certified in
foot and ankle surgery. The following quoted section is taken
from this Court's previous Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
59:
Griffey suffered from pain in her left foot, an ailment for
which she sought treatment from Adams. [DN 1, at 1-2.]
Throughout the course of their doctor-patient relationship,
“Griffey had had previous treatments for her left foot
paint with Adams including stretching, icing, shoe changes,
inserts and two corticosteroid injections…, all with
no improvement….” [Id. at 2.]
Thereafter, on August 31, 2015, Adams instructed Griffey that
she suffered from “chronic plantar fasciitis, left and
large infracalcaneal heel spur, ” and discussed the
option of surgical intervention with her. [Id.]
Griffey decided to proceed with the surgery, which took place
at [Defendant] Lourdes [Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC] on
September 15, 2015. [Id. at 2-3.] Adams conducted
the surgery. [Id. at 3.]
Griffey's pre-operation surgery order, electronically
signed by Adams, provides “operative consent”
concerning “plantar fascia release with heel spur
resection-left foot.” [DN 44-3, at 1.] Likewise,
Lourdes's consent form, signed by Griffey, authorized
Adams to perform “the following operation or procedure:
plantar fascia release with heel spur resection left
foot.” [DN 44-4, at 1.] However, when Adams began the
surgery at Lourdes at approximately 12:08 p.m., [DN 44-8, at
11 Day Dep., p. 16], “[a] tourniquet was placed about
her right thigh.” [DN 44-5, at 1 (Lourdes Procedure
Note) (emphasis added).] Then, “[a]n ankle block was
performed on the right extremity, ” and “[t]he
right lower extremely was then prepped and draped in usual
sterile fashion.” [Id.] Thereafter, “[a]
skin incision was started” on Griffey's right
ankle, at which time the anesthesiologist present in the
operating room “related that his chart said left
[ankle.]” [Id.] “The nurse, [Dana Day,
(“Day”)], again checked the cart, and the chart
did say left, ” and so Adams stitched up Griffey's
right foot and commenced the correct operation on
Griffey's left foot. [Id. at 1-2.]
In her Complaint, Griffey alleges that, as a result of the
operation and the erroneous incision made by Adams into her
right foot, she was rendered immobile, as “both her
left and right feet had surgical wounds and weight bearing
restrictions.” [DN 1, at 4.]
[DN 59, at 1-2.]
Subsequently,
Griffey filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the
issue of liability concerning both Adams and Lourdes for her
claims of negligence, gross negligence, and battery against
both of them. This Court held that liability for ordinary
negligence and battery had been established with respect to
both Defendants. Around that same time, Adams and Lourdes
filed motions for partial summary judgment on the issue of
gross negligence and, relatedly, the availability of punitive
damages to Griffey. This Court held that Griffey's claim
for gross negligence and punitive damages against Lourdes
must be dismissed, but that a factual dispute remained
concerning Adams. Thus, the remaining issues in this case
pertain to damages (as well as apportionment issues related
thereto) concerning Lourdes's and Adams's established
liability for negligence and battery, as well as
Griffey's remaining claim for gross negligence and
punitive damages against Adams, on which a genuine dispute of
material fact remains. Now, Griffey has filed a Motion
seeking to exclude the testimony of one of Defendants'
expert witnesses, Dr. John Grady, (“Grady”),
pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2.
Dr. Grady's Background & Opinion
Grady
is a doctor of podiatric medicine, who currently works as a
clinical professor in the Department of Podiatric Surgery and
Applied Biomechanics at the Rosalind Franklin University of
Medicine and Science. [DN 36-2, at 1 (Grady Curriculum
Vitae).] In addition to his current position, Grady's
curriculum vitae indicates that he has held numerous teaching
positions, both in the clinical area as well as the research
area. [Id.] He has been the Director of the
Podiatric Surgical Residency program for the VA Chicago
Healthcare System since November 1987 and has been the
Chairman of the Division of Podiatric Surgery at Little
Company of Mary Hospital in Chicago since September 2001.
[Id. at 1-2.] Grady received his Bachelor of Science
from Loyola University Chicago in 1976, his D.P.M. from the
Illinois College of Podiatric Medicine in 1980, and
thereafter completed a surgical residency at the Youngstown
Osteopathic Hospital in Youngstown, Ohio. [Id. at
5.] Grady also completed a fellowship in the area of
peripheral vascular disease and plastic surgery at the
Cleveland Clinic in 1982. [Id.]
In his expert witness disclosure, Grady stated that his
opinion is as follows:
[b]ased upon my education, training, background and
experience, as set forth in the attached Curriculum Vitae, it
is my opinion that Dr. Adams provided reasonably competent
and appropriate care to Mrs. Griffey by proceeding to operate
on her left (correct) foot, for which informed consent had
been given, while she was still under the effects of
anesthesia. Following the incision which had been made upon
the right foot, it was medically reasonable to proceed to
finish the procedure which had been planned and authorized,
as opposed to allowing time for Mrs. Griffey to sufficiently
awaken from anesthesia to discuss the situation and obtain
informed consent a second time, thereby avoiding further
exposure to anesthesia.
[DN 36-1 (Adams's Expert Witness Disclosure, Aug. 30,
2017).] In its expert witness disclosure, Lourdes
incorporated Grady's opinion by reference. [DN 39, at 1
(Lourdes's Expert Witness Disclosure, Sept. 5, 2017).]
Griffey now argues that Grady's proffered testimony is
(1) irrelevant, and (2) unreliable, and so should be excluded
by the Court. The merits of Griffey's Motion are
discussed below.
B.
...