United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
Reona J. Daly, United States Magistrate Judge
the Court are the motions in limine filed by Plaintiff and
Defendants (Docs. 145, 148, and 153). The Court has reviewed
the motions, any responses thereto, and sets forth its
rulings as follows:
in Limine filed by Defendants Trost and Ritz (Doc.
Defendants seek to bar evidence of any application for
insurance, insurance policy, or statement, evidence, or
testimony concerning whether Defendants may have insurance in
connection with Plaintiff's claim, or any reference to
any coverage dispute or indemnity agreement between any of
the parties to this action. Plaintiff indicates he has no
objection unless Defendants testify regarding their worth or
ability to pay a judgment or defend this suit. The Court
GRANTS Defendants' motion to bar such
evidence; however, if Defendants open the door with related
testimony, Plaintiff may raise the issue of insurance
coverage at that time.
Defendants seek to bar evidence of any statement, testimony
or argument about Wexford Health Sources, Inc. being a
for-profit corporation or a “big” corporation or
company, or “evil” or a “bad”
company. Plaintiff indicates he will not refer to Wexford as
a “big, ” “evil, ” or
“bad” company unless Defendants open the door.
However, Plaintiff contends it is relevant to refer to
Wexford as a for-profit corporation. The Court disagrees.
Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff
may explain that Wexford is a corporation that contracts with
the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
to provide health care services to inmates and that Dr. Ritz
and Dr. Trost were employees of Wexford, but it is irrelevant
to reference its “for-profit” status.
Defendants seek to bar evidence of any medical treatment
provided to other inmates. Plaintiff has no objection.
Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
Defendants seek to bar evidence of any statements purportedly
made by non-party medical providers that are not reflected in
the medical records, arguing such statements are inadmissible
hearsay. Plaintiff has no objection unless Defendants open
the door to such testimony. The Motion is
GRANTED unless Defendants open the door on
Defendants seek to bar evidence of any documents, testimony,
or other evidence concerning allegations, investigations,
claims, discipline, lawsuits, lawsuit settlements,
“other bad acts, ” or other matters asserted
against Defendant Trost or Ritz, by any other person or
entity, including, but not limited to, any other patient or
state medical board. Plaintiff states that he has not
identified any other lawsuit that would be admissible under
FRE 404(b), but such evidence may be proper impeachment.
Plaintiff further indicates that should Defendants open the
door, this evidence may be relevant and admissible. The Court
GRANTS Defendants' motion to bar such
evidence finding it would be more prejudicial than probative,
unless, however, Defendants open the door on the topic.
Defendants seek to prohibit Plaintiff from offering medical
or other technical literature to the jury because such
literature is generally prohibited as hearsay. Plaintiff
contends that he seeks to use statements from Guidelines for
Management of Hiatal Hernia published by the Society of
American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and a
statement from the medical journal article entitled
“Minimal Endoscopic Changes in Non-Erosive Refluex
Disease, ” published by Ferreira, et al. This Motion is
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court will issue
its ruling once it is clear how Plaintiff intends to
introduce the literature.
Defendants seek to bar introduction of evidence of
negligence, a standard of care, or hypotheticals concerning
other available treatments, asserting any such references are
irrelevant to the issue of deliberate indifference and will
only serve to confuse the jury. Plaintiff contends that
evidence of the standard of care is relevant and he should be
allowed to introduce evidence of the same, as well as
possible alternative treatments. The Motion is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff shall not be allowed to introduce evidence of
negligence or reference a “standard of care” as
presentation of such issues are likely to confuse the jury
and are irrelevant to the claim of deliberate indifference.
However, evidence of alternative treatments may be
Defendants seek to bar testimony of witnesses who are not
physicians, nurses, or mental health professionals, including
Plaintiff, which requires specialized knowledge, education,
or training. Plaintiff states that he intends to offer
permissible lay opinion testimony regarding the pain he has
suffered and continues to suffer, and that the treatment
provided has been ineffective in reducing or stopping the
pain. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff and his witnesses may
testify as to their own personal experiences and
observations, but Plaintiff and his witnesses shall be
prohibited from testifying as to the causation of any
specific medical diagnosis. See Gil v. Reed, 381
F.3d 649, 659 (7th Cir. 2004) (“no expert testimony is
needed when the symptoms exhibited by the plaintiff are not
beyond a layperson's grasp”).
Defendants seek to bar evidence of grievances, complaints,
affidavits, letters, and other documents demonstrating
Plaintiff's intent to commence this action and/or
descriptions of the medical care at issue. Defendants contend
such documents are inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff asserts
that grievance-related exhibits are relevant and are not
being offered to show the truth of the matters asserted. This
Motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court
generally finds that grievances are inadmissible hearsay.
However, such records may be admissible if they are relevant
and are not being offered for the truth of the matter
Defendants seek to exclude any documents, testimony, or other
evidence concerning Trost's termination from Wexford.
Plaintiff contends that such information is relevant because
Trost was terminated, in part, because he failed to properly
document patient referrals in collegial, which occurred in
this case. Defendants' Motion is
GRANTED. This evidence is more prejudicial
than probative and Plaintiff will be allowed to introduce
evidence of the issues with Dr. Trost's referrals without
introducing evidence of Trost's termination.
Defendants seek to bar Plaintiff from offering into evidence
any IDOC or Menard directives, policies, or protocols and/or
any Wexford policies or protocols regarding medical
treatment. Plaintiff contends such evidence is relevant
because it can establish that Defendants acted with
deliberate indifference. This Motion is TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT. The Court shall only issue a ...