United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
NORMAN BAMBER, M.D. Plaintiff,
PRIME HEALTHCARE KANSAS CITY - PHYSICIAN'S SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO
EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID SIEGEL
D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
is Plaintiff's request to exclude expert testimony of Dr.
David Siegel. Doc. #127. For the following reasons,
Plaintiff's request is granted, and Dr. Siegel's
expert testimony is excluded.
with Plaintiff's motions in limine was a request to
exclude the testimony of Defendant's expert, Dr. David
Siegel. Doc. #127. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's
request by arguing the motion was untimely. Doc. #129. When
issuing its rulings on the parties' motions in limine,
the Court found Plaintiff's request to exclude Dr.
Siegel's testimony was timely. Doc. #143, at 13-14. To
allow Defendant an opportunity to respond to the substance of
Plaintiff's request, the Court deferred its ruling on
Plaintiff's request and directed Defendant to file a
response. Id. Defendant submitted its opposition to
Plaintiff's request, and Plaintiff recently filed a
reply. Docs. #148-49.
admission of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or
data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles
and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Evid. 702. The district court must make a “preliminary
assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying
the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that
reasoning or methodology can be applied to the facts in
issue.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993). The Court uses a three-part test
when determining the admissibility of expert testimony:
First, evidence based on scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge must be useful to the finder of fact in
deciding the ultimate issue of fact. This is the basic rule
of relevancy. Second, the proposed witness must be qualified
to assist the finder of fact. Third, the proposed evidence
must be reliable or trustworthy in an evidentiary sense, so
that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it provides
the assistance the finder of fact requires.
Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th
Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“Courts should resolve doubts regarding usefulness of
an expert's testimony in favor of admissibility.”
Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 758
(8th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
Siegel is a “senior executive physician/attorney”
who has more than twenty-five years of experience in
healthcare, including health system management and consultant
roles. Doc. #127-9, at 1. Dr. Siegel was in clinical
practice, worked as an emergency department physician, and
has served as a clinical professor of medicine, an examiner
for the American Board of Emergency Medicine, and a Chief
Medical Officer. Id. at 2. According to his report,
Dr. Siegel will testify at trial to the following opinions:
• “[I]t would have been in the best interests of
the hospital inpatients, as well as normal medical practice
and standard in the industry, for a medical staff member and
employed specialist such as Dr. Bamber to provide inpatient
consultations as reasonably requested by Prime.”
• “As indicated in the Medical Staff Bylaws and
Medical Rules and Regulations, inpatient consultations are
ordinary and expected professional services of an active
medical staff physician at a hospital…. [P]rofessional
medical services and acceptable medical standards require a
doctor to go where the hospital inpatient is located. An
active medical staff member and employed specialist insisting
hospital inpatients travel to a clinic for care is not acting
in the best interests of the patient. Prime's requested