Brown v. Shell Rocky Mountain Production LLC
2:18-cv-00068
D. Wyo.Aug 30, 2019Background
- Plaintiffs Ronald and Valerie Brown sued Shell Rocky Mountain Production LLC, SWEPI LP, and Jeromy Moffat; several pretrial motions in limine were filed related to expert and billing evidence.
- Defendant Moffat moved to limit testimony of 22 non-retained treating providers, to bar testimony about the reasonableness of billed amounts without a retained expert, and to exclude evidence of amounts billed.
- Plaintiffs moved to exclude certain records from Defendant’s expert Dr. Rauzzino and to preclude mention that Shell/Swepi were defendants or settled with Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs filed a separate motion to prevent Defendant’s expert Mr. Cate from relying on unproduced computer modeling not referenced in his report.
- Dispute centers on adequacy/timeliness of expert disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) and the IPT order, admissibility of billed vs. paid medical amounts, and exclusion of settlement evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treating, non-retained providers may testify beyond their own records or give opinions on reasonableness/value of care | Plaintiffs contend their Rule 26(a)(2)(C) summaries (including a "catch-all") plus provider summaries suffice to permit testimony on cost/reasonableness without retained experts | Moffat argues the designations are inadequate under the IPT order and that chargemaster/billed rates require retained expert testimony | Denied as untimely; also substantive denial — Plaintiffs' disclosures met Rule 26(a)(2)(C)/IPT requirements and evidence goes to weight, not exclusion |
| Whether evidence of billed amounts (chargemaster) must be excluded or require expert on chargemaster/market value | Plaintiffs say treating providers and paid amounts can establish reasonableness; may rely on non-expert testimony and paid amounts | Defendant argues chargemaster rates are inflated and unreliable, requiring expert proof to establish reasonable value | Denied — proffered challenges go to weight; Wyoming law permits non-expert testimony and paid amounts may be relevant to reasonableness |
| Whether Dr. Rauzzino should be precluded from relying on certain medical records | Plaintiffs contend records relied on by Dr. Rauzzino are improper or newly relied-upon in his supplement | Defendant says the records were already reviewed and disclosed in his earlier report; Plaintiffs delayed raising the issue | Denied in part as untimely regarding records Dr. Rauzzino previously reviewed; motion to exclude those records denied |
| Whether reference to Shell/Swepi as former defendants or their settlement is admissible | Plaintiffs seek to bar any mention of Shell/Swepi or their settlement if they settle with Plaintiffs | Defendant says settlement evidence may show motive/bias or explain absence of parties | Granted in part — references to Shell/Swepi as former defendants or their settlement are precluded under Rule 408, subject to reconsideration if a different, admissible purpose arises |
| Whether Defendant may rely at trial on unproduced computer modeling referenced only in deposition of Mr. Cate | Plaintiffs argue modeling was not disclosed in Mr. Cate’s report and should be excluded | Defendant says he will not present opinions relying on the modeling unless Plaintiffs open the door in questioning | Granted in part — Defendant may not rely on the computer modeling unless Plaintiffs first open the door |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyoming Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Murray, 27 P.3d 266 (Wyo. 2001) (Wyoming permits reliance on non-expert testimony to establish reasonableness of medical charges)
- Smyth v. Kaufman, 67 P.3d 1161 (Wyo. 2003) (settlement evidence inadmissible to prove liability; comparative-fault allocation may involve nonparties)
- Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703 (Wyo. 1993) (settlement evidence excluded under W.R.E. 408)
- Wal‑Mart Stores v. Clark, 969 P.2d 550 (Wyo. 1998) (plaintiff bears burden to prove reasonableness of medical expenses)
- Banks v. Crowner, 694 P.2d 101 (Wyo. 1985) (same point regarding burden to prove medical expense reasonableness)