Brutton v. United States
687 F. App'x 56
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 20, 2012, Shaneen Brutton was a passenger in a taxi that collided with a U.S. Postal Service truck; about a month before, a bathroom ceiling had collapsed on her and she sought emergency care for head, neck, and back pain.
- Approximately one year after the crash, Brutton began treating with Dr. Sebastian Lattuga, who later performed surgery; his treatment notes did not reference the prior ceiling incident.
- Brutton sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States and state-law claims against the taxi company and driver; the Southern District of New York held a bench trial.
- The district court limited Dr. Lattuga’s testimony to opinions formed during treatment and excluded any trial-formulated causation opinions about the falling ceiling (motion in limine ruling), because no expert report or treatment records addressed that competing cause.
- After cross-examining Dr. Lattuga, the district court granted defendants’ Rule 52(c) motion for judgment on partial findings on causation, concluding Brutton failed to rule out the ceiling accident as an alternative cause.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the evidentiary limitation was within the district court’s discretion and that Brutton failed to present admissible expert evidence to eliminate the competing cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a treating physician may testify as to causation when the opinion was not formed during treatment and no expert report was produced | Brutton: Dr. Lattuga could testify about causation despite lack of an expert report | Defendants: Such causation opinions are trial-crafted expert testimony requiring a Rule 26 expert report | Held: Treating physicians may testify only to opinions formed during treatment; post-treatment causation opinions require expert disclosure and report (district court did not abuse discretion) |
| Whether Brutton presented sufficient evidence to rule out alternative cause (the falling ceiling) under New York law | Brutton: Her testimony and Dr. Lattuga’s treatment suffice to show the car accident caused her injuries | Defendants: The ceiling accident is a competing cause and Brutton failed to present expert proof to eliminate it | Held: Under New York law plaintiff must adduce expert evidence to rule out alternative causes; Brutton failed to do so, so judgment for defendants was proper |
| Whether the district court erred in granting Rule 52(c) judgment before defendants’ expert testimony | Brutton: Granting judgment was premature because defendants’ expert had not yet testified | Defendants: Plaintiff was fully heard on causation; dismissal was proper | Held: A bench court may enter judgment under Rule 52(c) after a party is fully heard; dismissal was proper here |
| Whether exclusion of non-treatment opinions from Dr. Lattuga violated Brutton’s right to present her case | Brutton: Limiting testimony improperly hampered her ability to prove causation | Defendants: Limitation enforced Rule 26 notice requirements and prevented ambush | Held: Limitation was appropriate to preserve Rule 26's notice function and avoid unfair ambush; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (New York law governs FTCA state-law tort claims)
- Diaz v. Anasco, 38 A.D.3d 295 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (plaintiff must rule out alternative causes appearing in the record)
- Sleepy's LLC v. Select Comfort Wholesale Corp., 779 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 52(c) findings)
- United States v. Birbal, 62 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), 619 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010) (treating physician offering new causation opinions may be treated as retained expert requiring Rule 26 report)
- Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2011) (same principle regarding treating physicians and expert reports)
- Fielden v. CSX Transp., Inc., 482 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2007) (same principle regarding treating physicians and expert reports)