Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Mitchell v. Iowa Interstate RR Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


May 25, 2010

LANCE MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF
v.
IOWA INTERSTATE RR LTD., DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Gorman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The parties have consented to have this case heard to judgment by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the District Judge has referred the case to me. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion in limine (Doc. #. 55) to bar reference to pre-injury work life expectancy.

Plaintiff asks the Court to bar any evidence, testimony or argument regarding "Plaintiff's pre-injury work life expectancy." In other words, Plaintiff asserts that only an expert could testify that the length of time Plaintiff could have worked was shortened by medical conditions that existed prior to the injury that is at issue in this case. According to Plaintiff, none of the witnesses already disclosed have rendered an opinion on this matter but there is reason to believe that such an argument might be made to the jury. Without expert testimony on this matter, Plaintiff asserts that such argument would be improper.

Defendant responds that it has properly disclosed its medical experts and that they are qualified to opine that Plaintiff's current condition is attributable to his pre-incident ailments. That response does not answer the question posed by the motion, which is whether these medical witnesses have already opined - in their reports or in their depositions - on the impact of Plaintiff's prior injuries on his future ability to work.

To the extent that these witnesses have not already provided opinions on this topic, they are clearly barred from expanding their opinions at this time. Because the parties have made no more specific argument than what is discussed above, the Court cannot make a more specific ruling than this.

To the extent stated herein, the motion [#55] is GRANTED.

ENTERED ON May 25, 2010

20100525

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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