Dino Iacullo v. USA
657 F. App'x 916
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Iacullo, a federal prisoner, alleged that prison dental staff in South Carolina and Alabama failed to provide necessary root canals from 1997–2008, leading to extraction of two molars at FPC Montgomery.
- He filed an FTCA suit against the United States in 2010 after administrative claim denial, seeking $5,000 for negligent dental treatment.
- The Government submitted a Special Report and a declaration from the prison Chief Dentist denying substandard care; Iacullo submitted an expert affidavit from Dr. Mark Maggert asserting malpractice.
- Alabama law requires medical-malpractice plaintiffs to present expert testimony from a “similarly situated health care provider” who is licensed; Maggert attested he had 30 years’ experience but later had a Florida dental license suspension order.
- The Board of Dentistry’s 2012 order suspended Maggert’s license “concurrent with” his incarceration; the district court construed that as retroactive and excluded the affidavit, granting summary judgment to the United States.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the word “concurrent” did not clearly make the suspension retroactive, so exclusion of the affidavit was manifestly erroneous; the judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maggert was a "similarly situated" expert under Ala. Code § 6‑5‑548 | Maggert was licensed/qualified when he executed the affidavit and thus satisfies Alabama’s expert requirement | The Board’s order suspended Maggert’s license "concurrent" with his incarceration, making the suspension retroactive and rendering him unlicensed when he signed the affidavit | Court held the suspension order did not clearly operate retroactively; affidavit should not have been excluded on that basis |
| Whether exclusion of the affidavit warranted summary judgment for the Government | Excluding the affidavit improperly eliminated Plaintiff’s evidence of substandard care | Retroactive suspension means no qualifying expert, so Plaintiff cannot meet malpractice proof requirement | Court reversed exclusion as manifestly erroneous and vacated summary judgment |
| Standard of review for expert exclusion | N/A (plaintiff challenges exclusion) | N/A | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies to excluding expert testimony; construction of settlement agreement is reviewed de novo |
| Mootness based on Maggert’s death | Plaintiff can still rely on the affidavit or obtain new expert; case remains live | Maggert’s death makes remand pointless because he cannot testify at trial | Court rejected mootness argument; remand appropriate so district court can consider evidence and manage admissibility issues |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for exclusion of expert testimony)
- Waters v. Int’l Precious Metals Corp., 237 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2001) (settlement‑agreement construction reviewed de novo)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial courts have leeway in evaluating expert testimony)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2001) (case not moot where live controversy remains)
- Gonzalez‑Jiminez De Ruiz v. United States, 378 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2004) (FTCA: apply state law to substantive tort issues)
- Pruitt v. Zeiger, 590 So.2d 236 (Ala. 1991) (Alabama requirement that malpractice plaintiffs use expert testimony from a similarly situated provider)