United States: EDNY Lays Out Disclosure/Report Requirements For Nonretained Treating Doctor Experts

Last Updated: February 21 2018
Article by Stephen J. McConnell

When a drug or device case goes to trial, who is the most important witness? Let's straightaway eliminate the plaintiff as a possible answer to that question. Based on what we've heard from jurors (both real and mock), when plaintiffs prevail it is often despite themselves. So then who? A credible company witness can turn things around and defuse jury anger over company conduct. Or that witness can make things much worse by squirming or fencing. Or the plaintiff lawyers could overplay their hand by overplaying videotaped testimony, thereby boring the jurors into catatonia. What about experts? Most jurors will tell you they discounted the experts from both sides, viewing paid-for testimony with measured skepticism.

For our money, the most important witness is often the plaintiff's prescribing or treating physician. People trust doctors. It is easy to see a particular plaintiff's doctors as practicing medicine, not litigation. They talk about what they actually did to treat a patient. It seems that they truthfully recount reality, not merely mouth a script authorized by the lawyers. Perhaps it is a vast oversimplification, but when we assess cases as being favorable or unfavorable, as being a good or bad case for bellwether trial selection, or when we assess settlement valuation, whether the plaintiff's doctors offer a thumbs up or thumbs down on the product ranks near the top of the criteria.

Sometimes figuring out what the plaintiff treaters will say amounts to a game of chicken. We can read the medical records. That part is easy. We can depose the doctors on the obvious medical questions about what happened. But it becomes a bit terrifying when it comes to asking doctors the bottom line questions of whether the product in question actually caused the injury, or whether the doctors would still use the product knowing what they know now. It's nice to get helpful testimony, but one is always wary about eliciting testimony that kills one's case. If things go kablooey, it is time for the dunce cap and time for a difficult conversation with the client. So you nibble a bit with your questions here and there, and pounce only if things look really promising.

And then what? Is the doctor's opinion – for that is where we are now – admissible? Can we label it as an expert opinion? Do we need to disclose the doctor as an expert? If so, what does the disclosure need to say? This process can also amount to a game of chicken. How much or how little of a preview is required? Playing this game wrong can have severe consequences.

That was certainly the case in Webb v. Zimmer, Inc., 2018 WL 836366 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2018). It is a knee replacement product liability case. What do we learn from the Webb case? To begin with, it doesn't pay to be less than forthcoming with opposing counsel about your expert witnesses. The plaintiff side did not inform the defense that a treater would also testify as an expert on a key issue, and then tried to bring the witness in as an expert at the last minute, after a summary judgment motion was filed. That is a classic backfilling operation. The Webb court provides a solid discussion of what treaters can and can't testify to when no expert report is provided. Ultimately, the plaintiff was allowed to get away with belated testimony about the doctor's own response to different warnings, but only at the price of having to pay for having a second deposition of the doctor. Other non-treatment opinions were excluded. The Webb case offers a decent lists of do's and don'ts.

Let's flesh out the particulars.

The physician/maybe-expert was Dr. Unis, who performed a right total knee replacement on the plaintiff using the defendant's knee flex system. At the time, Dr. Unis was using this product for all of his primary knee replacements, regardless of the specifics of his patients' conditions. That was because Dr. Unis felt "comfortable with the nuances of the system which [he believes] contributes to the success of putting in an implant." Ten days after the initial knee surgery on the plaintiff, Dr. Unis remarked that the plaintiff "really looked great." But that greatness did not last. Dr. Unis later performed three revision surgeries on the plaintiff's knee. The plaintiff was displeased and filed a lawsuit alleging the usual array of product liability claims. After discovery and the usual pretrial skirmishes, the plaintiff abandoned her design defect theory and confined her claims to those based on a failure to warn theory. What was the relevant warning? It actually seems pretty complete. It informed the surgeon that soft tissues should be balanced and components positioning confirmed to minimize edge loading. Under "Patient Counseling Information," the insert stated that because prosthetic joints are not as strong, some might need to be replaced at some point.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In her opposition papers, the plaintiff included an affidavit from Dr. Unis that, among other things, addressed the failure to warn theory, including what Dr. Unis would have done if the warning had been improved. The defendants then sought to exclude the Unis affidavit on the grounds that the plaintiff did not disclose Dr. Unis as an expert witness on the failure to warn elements, and because the plaintiff did not provide the required disclosures under Rule 26(a).

Now let's turn to a bit of history. Prior to 2010, when Rule 26(a)(2)(C) was added, as a general rule, parties did not need formally to designate treating physicians as experts or serve expert reports summarizing their opinions in order to bring those treaters in to testify. Rather, the treating physician was considered a special species of fact witness and could offer medical opinions only if such opinions were formed during the course and scope of treatment of the plaintiff. Information or opinion that was acquired by the treating physician from an outside source was out of bounds. Things changed significantly after the adoption of Rule 26(a)(2)(C) in 2010, though not many lawyers seem to know it. Under the new rule, a treating physician may offer factual testimony as well as opinion testimony regarding his patient's diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, or causation as long as the proper disclosure is served on the other side. Rule 26(a)(2)(C) requires a statement regarding "(i) the subject matter on which the witness is expected to present evidence under 702, 703, or 705; and (ii) a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). This requirement is much more extensive than formerly had been required for treaters, though still less extensive than expert reports and disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) for retained experts. Without the required disclosure under either Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or Rule 26(a)(2)(C), a treating physician may testify only as a fact witness regarding patient treatment.

In the Webb case, the plaintiff tendered an expert disclosure for Dr. Unis as an expert witness, but provided no summary of his expert opinions, as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Instead, that disclosure revealed that Dr. Unis's testimony would be confined to his care and treatment of the plaintiff, as well as "causation" and "any other questions that relate to the issue of plaintiff's damages." Not a word was whispered about the effect of the warnings. Following the initial disclosures, the plaintiff withdrew her initial expert reports for revision, based on her revised theory of the case. Remember, that revised theory centered on failure to warn. The defense counsel asked about the scope of Dr. Unis's expert opinions, and made clear that the defense assumed that Dr. Unis would not offer opinions related to the adequacy of the product warnings or that a failure-to-warn caused the injuries. The plaintiff's counsel responded that "I am not sure we disagree," and that Dr. Unis's opinions would "not be as an expert but as a fact witness to what he observed and concluded about the product and the plaintiff's physical condition based on his personal experiences in this case." Again, there was no hint about warnings.

The Webb court held that this expert disclosure provided no indication that Dr. Unis intended to testify as to the plaintiff's failure to warn theory, or that he would utilize outside information to form his expert opinions. That conclusion seems utterly inescapable. By contrast, the Unis affidavit submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the summary judgment motion contained Dr. Unis's "thoughts regarding the adequacy of Zimmer's warnings or what he would have done differently had he known about any alleged improper warning or contraindication." Significantly, the Webb court concluded that "these statements constitute an expert opinion. These paragraphs do not contain treatment explanations or opinions as to the Plaintiff's diagnoses; these are statements of hypothetical thoughts or actions that involve outside information." Wow. We have always thought that it was pure speculation for a physician to offer post hoc testimony about what he or she would have done had the warnings said what the plaintiff's lawyer – with 20/20 litigation and medical hindsight – now says the warning should have said. But Webb now gives defense lawyers an additional ground to repel such testimony: it is expert testimony that implicates the disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(C). Check your file. We bet that the plaintiff lawyer did not supply the requisite disclosure.

Unfortunately, the Webb court did not flat-out preclude the belated "expert" testimony about warning causation. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C) did not automatically preclude the affidavit under Rule 37(c). A district court has wide discretion to impose sanctions, including severe sanctions, under Rule 37. The typical sanctions analysis militated in favor of some sort of sanctions in the Webb case for the plaintiff's expert shell-game, because the plaintiff offered "no persuasive explanation for not appropriately disclosing Dr. Unis's expert testimony, which is beyond what is properly given by a treating physician." Moreover, the defendants would be prejudiced if the court were to allow portions of the Unis Affidavit to be admitted — without allowing the defendants to conduct additional discovery. Thus, the court decided to reopen discovery only to allow the defendants to re-depose Dr. Unis on the failure to warn theory and his affidavit. The Webb court further ordered plaintiff's counsel pay the defendants' reasonable attorney's fees associated with the renewed deposition of Dr. Unis, as well as reasonable attorney's fees that the defendants' incurred in bringing the motion to strike. Literally, the plaintiff lawyers paid the price for failing to disclose the true scope of the treating doctor's opinion. Time will tell whether that price was high enough.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions