Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paine v. Johnson

February 23, 2010

KATHLEEN PAINE, AS GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTINA ROSE EILMAN, A DISABLED PERSON, PLAINTIFF ,
v.
OFFICER JEFFREY JOHNSON, OFFICER, RICHARD CASON, OFFICER ROSENDO MORENO, LIEUTENANT CARSON EARNEST, SERGEANT DAVID BERGLIND, DETENTION AIDE SHARON STOKES, OFFICER TERESA WILLIAMS, DETENTION AIDE CYNTHIA HUDSON, DETENTION AIDE CATONIA QUINN, OFFICER DEBORAH MABERY, OFFICER PAMELA SMITH, OFFICER BENITA MILLER, OFFICER PAULINE HEARD, AND CITY OF CHICAGO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Virginia M. Kendall United States District Court Judge Northern District of Illinois

Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kathleen Paine ("Paine"), as Guardian of the Estate of Christina Rose Eilman ("Eilman"), filed this suit against the City of Chicago and various members of the Chicago Police Department (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of Eilman's constitutional rights and violations of federal and Illinois law. As more fully set forth in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 7, 2008, Paine brings this suit on behalf of Eilman, her daughter, for injuries that Eilman incurred after the Chicago Police Department released her from custody. Paine has now moved to exclude all or parts of the proposed testimony of eight expert witnesses. Defendants have moved to exclude all or parts of the proposed testimony of seven expert witnesses.

For the reasons set forth below, Paine's Motion In Limine and Motion to Bar the Opinion Testimony and Report of Defendants' Gynecology Expert, Dr. Linda Hughey Holt, is granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ("Rule 702") and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. See Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2007). Rule 702 states: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." The Seventh Circuit has developed a three-step admissibility analysis for expert testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert. See Ervin, 492 F.3d at 904. First, "the witness must be qualified 'as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.'" Id. (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702). Second, "the expert's reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony must be scientifically reliable." Id. (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93). Courts are, however, granted "broad latitude when [they] decide[] how to determine reliability." Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S 137, 142 (1999). Finally, the expert's testimony must be relevant, or "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Ervin, 492 F.3d at 904.

DISCUSSION

I. Paine's Motion to Bar the Expert Testimony of Defendants' Gynecology Expert, Dr. Linda Hughey Holt

Dr. Linda Hughey Holt ("Holt") is a licensed Illinois physician who is actively involved in clinical practice and teaching in obstetrics and gynecology. Holt proposes to testify, based upon her review of Eilman's medical records and other material in the record, that Eilman's gynecological and menstrual history was normal and that she was not "bleeding an unusual amount" while in police custody. (R. 549, Ex. A., Report of Dr. Linda Hughey Holt, at 2.) (hereinafter "Holt Rep.") Paine moves to bar Holt's testimony on the grounds that it will not assist the jury and is thus not a proper subject for expert testimony, and that it is irrelevant and would constitute an undue waste of time.

A. Qualifications

Paine does not contest Holt's qualifications to testify as an expert in the field of gynecological medicine. The Curriculum Vitae attached to Holt's report reveals a long and distinguished career of medical practice and academic scholarship. (See Holt. Rep. App'x 1-7. ) The Court therefore finds her qualified to offer the opinions contained in her report. See Reilly v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 846 F.2d 416, 421 (7th Cir. 1988) (reviewing experts' curricula vitae in order to support an unchallenged finding that the experts were qualified in their fields).

B. Methodology

Although the issue of methodological soundness is not raised in Paine's Motion to Bar, the Court may raise issues affecting the admissibility of expert testimony sua sponte. See Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 2009). Experts must not only base their conclusions upon sufficient data and use reliable principles and methods, they must also apply "the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702; see Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. WH-TV Broad. Corp., 395 F.3d 416, 419 (7th Cir. 2005) ("An expert must offer good reason to think that his approach produces an accurate estimate using professional methods . . . ."). Expert opinions must result from a reasoned process supported by adequate data. See Lewis, 561 F.3d at 705 ("[A] medical expert's ultimate opinion must be grounded in the scientific process and may not be merely a subjective belief or unsupported conjecture.").

Holt's report states that she reviewed Eilman's medical records, the deposition testimony of Eilman's family doctor, photographs of Eilman's athletic shorts worn during her time in custody, and deposition material from Eilman's fellow detainees. (Holt Rep. at 1.) On the basis of this review, Holt concluded that Eilman "had no significant gynecological history" and that her menstrual periods were normal. (Holt Rep. at 2.) Holt's report further states that an "average overall menstrual blood loss is <80 cc="" over="" 4-7="" days"="" and="" that="" eilman's="" blood="" flow="" during="" her="" time="" in="" custody="" did="" not="" appear="" unusual.="" (holt="" rep.="" at="" 1-2.)="" while="" the="" report="" itself="" does="" not="" provide="" a="" source="" for="" the="" data="" regarding="" normal="" blood="" loss,="" holt="" testified="" at="" deposition="" that="" she="" referred="" to="" a="" gynecology="" textbook="" in="" order="" to="" find="" the="" specific="" number,="" but="" that="" her="" initial="" estimate="" had="" been="" generally="" based="" on="" her="" background,="" training="" and="" general="" knowledge.="" (r.="" 549="" ex.="" b.,="" deposition="" testimony="" of="" dr.="" linda="" hughey="" holt,="" at="" 18,="" 101.)="" (hereinafter="" "holt="" dep.")="" the="" material="" upon="" which="" holt="" relied="" thus="" appears="" to="" have="" been="" "of="" a="" type="" reasonably="" relied="" upon="" by="" experts="" in="" the="" particular="" field."="" fed.="" r.="" evid.="">

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.