Buccina v. Grimsby, 3:14-cv-02434

Background

Plaintiff Nancy Buccina sues defendant Linda Grimsby for personal injuries from a boating accident near the Maumee River; court previously found admiralty jurisdiction and denied earlier dispositive motions.
Central factual dispute: whether Buccina suffered ongoing injury/need for treatment from an end-plate compression fracture and whether a pre-existing herniated disc was aggravated by the accident.
Plaintiff disclosed several experts (treating physician Dr. Debonnet; causation expert Dr. Neil Schechter; marine/wake expert John Deck III) and a passenger, Marie Roy, who sent an email describing the event.
Defendant moved in limine to exclude or limit testimony from those witnesses and to exclude Roy’s untimely produced email.
Court considered scope of treating-physician testimony, expert causation opinions, applicability and limits of the Inland Navigation Rules to a single-boat wake incident, and prejudice from late disclosure of Roy’s email.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether treating physician (Dr. Debonnet) may testify in rebuttal	Debonnet may rebut defense expert that no further treatment is needed; he is a treating witness	Disclosure as an expert was untimely; should be barred	Granted — treating physician may testify as fact witness on care, prognosis, rebuttal of defense expert
2. Limit Dr. Schechter’s causation testimony (compression fracture vs. disc herniation)	Schechter may opine that accident caused fracture and aggravated pre-existing herniation, explaining ongoing pain	Defendant sought to bar opinion that accident caused herniation	Denied — Schechter may testify that accident aggravated pre-existing disc to reasonable medical certainty; he attributes fracture to accident
3. Exclude or limit John Deck’s testimony about cause/height of wave and Inland Navigation Rules	Deck is qualified to opine on wake, wave height, and applicability of navigation rules to unsafe operation	Defendant: Inland Rules apply only to vessel-vessel collisions; expert cannot state law or say defendant violated rules; zone (no-wake) disputed	Granted in part/Denied in part — Deck may testify about conditions, risks, and which Inland Rules inform standard of care, but may not instruct jury on law or state legal conclusions that defendant violated the Rules
4. Exclude Marie Roy’s testimony because plaintiff’s counsel disclosed an email late	Plaintiff: disclosure was untimely but nondeliberate; Roy’s testimony remains admissible	Defendant: late production deprived defense of impeachment and third-party lead (large boat causing wake); seeks exclusion	Denied — no substantial prejudice found; defense may take a limited, defense-funded supplemental deposition of Roy if needed; trial date may be moved only for diligence-based reasons

Key Cases Cited

St. Vincent v. Werner Enters., 267 F. R. D. 344 (D. Mont. 2010) (treating physician is a fact witness unless testimony goes beyond care, treatment, prognosis)
Matheny v. TVA, 523 F. Supp. 2d 697 (M.D. Tenn. 2007) (applying Inland Rules to wake/capsizing incident)
Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Claimant State of Florida, Dep’t of Transp., 768 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1985) (Inland Rules applied in non-traditional collision contexts)
Caravel/Woodwind Charters, Inc. v. Tahoe Keys Marina, LLC, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (Inland Rules applied where pleasure boat struck submerged hazard)
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (work-product doctrine and discoverability of attorney-created materials)
The Ashley, 221 F. 423 (2d Cir. 1915) (historical application of Inland Rules)
Buccina v. Grimsby, 96 F. Supp. 3d 706 (N.D. Ohio 2015) (prior district-court proceedings in this case)