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.

Howell v. Wexford Health Source Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 28, 2019

LARRY HOWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE INC. and DR. JOHN TROST, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motions in Limine (Doc. 122), Defendants' Supplemental Motions in Limine (Doc. 126), and Defendants' Amended Supplemental Motions in Limine (Doc. 127). The Court has reviewed the motions and any responses thereto, and heard arguments proffered at the May 2, 2019 final pretrial conference, and now sets forth its rulings as follows:

         Defendants' Motions in Limine (Docs. 122, 126, and 127)

         1. Motion in limine to preclude any and all argument and evidence of other medical treatment provided to inmates.

         Defendants contend Plaintiff should be prohibited from introducing evidence of other, similar incidents absent a clear demonstration of substantial similarity between Plaintiff's claims and such other claims or incidents. Plaintiff asserts that in order to establish Wexford's deliberate indifference to his medical needs, he must establish that a policy, practice or custom of Wexford caused him to sustain a constitutional deprivation. Plaintiff contends that in order to establish Wexford's deliberate indifference in this instance, he must be permitted to enter evidence or testimony related to treatment provided by Wexford to other inmates (Pierre James, Tavieus Simmons, Kevin Hall, and Stephen Couch) that shows Wexford's policy, practice or custom of treatment amounts to a systemic prescription of ineffective and unsupervised physical therapy. In reply, Defendants assert Plaintiff did not identify James, Simmons, Hall, or Couch in his initial disclosures or his Rule 26 disclosures. Defendants also assert that the complaints referenced by these individuals are not substantially similar to Plaintiff's allegations surviving summary judgment.

         This motion is GRANTED. The Court has reviewed the affidavits of James, Simmons, Hall, and Couch, and finds that these inmates have not attested to receiving substantially similar care as Plaintiff relevant to the pending policy and practice claim against Wexford. Plaintiff has misconstrued the pending claim against Wexford as a systemic prescription of ineffective and unsupervised physical therapy. The Court's Order clearly states that “a jury could find that Wexford's policy regarding collegial review for outside specialty consultations resulted in Plaintiff continually suffering pain.” Accordingly, the relevant policy here is Wexford's handling of its collegial review process. Because the affiants have not indicated they would testify to issues and delays concerning the collegial review process as it relates to an orthopedic injury, their testimony is not relevant.

         2. Motion in limine to preclude any and all argument and evidence of Defendants' insurance or insurance policy.

         Plaintiff agrees to this motion. The motion is GRANTED.

         3. Motion in limine to preclude any and all argument and evidence concerning defense counsel's law firm or time and cost associated with defense.

         Plaintiff agrees to this motion. The motion is GRANTED.

         4. Motion in limine to preclude any and all argument and evidence concerning status of settlement negotiations.

         Plaintiff agrees to this motion. The motion is GRANTED.

         5. Motion in limine to preclude any and all statement, testimony or argument about Wexford Health Sources, Inc. being a for-profit corporation or a “big” corporation or company.

         Plaintiff agrees to this motion. The motion is GRANTED.

         6. Motion in limine to preclude all argument and evidence concerning Defendants' ...


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.