Bailey v. United States
115 F. Supp. 3d 882
N.D. Ohio2015Background
- Decedent Glenni Wilsey sought to enlist in the Army in late 2010–early 2011, underwent repeated weigh-ins and body-fat measurements by Army recruiters, and lost ~45 pounds between December 2010 and late February 2011.
- Recruiter Staff Sgt. Anthony Charles recorded Wilsey’s weight/body-fat and told him to "run and do cardio;" Wilsey later adopted extreme dieting, purging, sweat garments, and supplements.
- Wilsey enlisted on February 11, 2011; he continued rapid weight loss after meeting Army standards and was found dead on March 3, 2011. Coroner listed acute cardiac dysrhythmia, electrolyte imbalance, and dieting as contributing factors; no autopsy was performed.
- Plaintiff (mother and successor) sued the United States and recruiters under the FTCA for negligence/wrongful death, asserting recruiters instructed dangerous weight-loss methods and failed to monitor/warn.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing lack of admissible evidence of causation and breach/duty; court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of decedent’s out-of-court statements | Wilsey told family/friends recruiters instructed dangerous methods; those statements show recruiters’ direction | Statements are hearsay and not covered by a federal hearsay exception | Hearsay; inadmissible — court excluded the statements |
| Admissibility of plaintiff’s medical expert causation opinion | Dr. Noftz opines electrolyte abnormalities from extreme dieting/exercise likely caused death | Expert opinion is speculative, lacks autopsy/premortem labs, and fails differential-diagnosis methodology | Expert testimony excluded under Rule 702/Daubert/Tamraz; opinion unreliable |
| Proximate causation (negligence → death) | Recruiters’ instructions and failure to warn/monitor proximately caused death | No admissible evidence linking recruiters’ conduct to death; expert excluded | No admissible evidence of proximate causation; plaintiff cannot meet burden |
| Existence of duty / special-relationship | Recruiters owed an ordinary or affirmative duty to protect/monitor Wilsey (foreseeable risk) | No special relationship; recruiters did not create or control the danger and could not foresee death | No duty shown; no special relationship recognized; duty not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine issue standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert principles apply to all expert testimony)
- Best v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., 563 F.3d 171 (Sixth Circuit on differential diagnosis standard)
- Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665 (rejecting speculative differential-diagnosis causation)
- Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (considerations for hearsay and corroboration)
- Wiley v. United States, 20 F.3d 222 (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Miller v. Field, 35 F.3d 1088 (documents based on inadmissible hearsay are inadmissible)