Hinson v. United States
8:18-cv-01499
| M.D. Fla. | Apr 18, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Hinson sued the United States under the FTCA for injuries from a motor-vehicle collision with a USPS employee and identified one retained medical expert and eleven non-retained/treating medical providers in his expert disclosures.
- The United States moved to strike the eleven non-retained medical witnesses, arguing their disclosed summaries fail to meet Rule 26(a)(2)(C) and that some opinions (causation/future prognosis) exceed treating-physician testimony and thus require full Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports.
- After the motion, Hinson untimely amended his disclosures, removing four challenged experts and expanding summaries for five remaining treating/non-retained experts; the government still moved to exclude the remaining seven.
- The core legal questions: whether treating providers’ opinions require full expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or can be disclosed under the shorter Rule 26(a)(2)(C) format, and whether Hinson’s summaries sufficiently identify specific opinions and factual bases required by Rule 26(a)(2)(C).
- The court found several disclosures deficient for lack of specific opinions and bases and struck the amended disclosures, but allowed Hinson leave to amend by a deadline and extended discovery only for that limited purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treating/non-retained medical witnesses may testify without a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report | Hinson treated these providers as non-retained treating witnesses and relied on Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures | US argued some opinions (causation, future prognosis) go beyond treatment and require full Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports; current summaries are too vague | Court: Treating witnesses can avoid full reports for opinions formed during treatment, but summaries must meet Rule 26(a)(2)(C); opinions beyond treatment require Rule 26(a)(2)(B) reports |
| Whether Hinson’s amended Rule 26(a)(2)(C) summaries are adequate | Hinson amended disclosures to add detail for several providers | US maintained amended summaries still lacked specific opinions and factual bases for certain doctors | Court: Several amended summaries were inadequate; those disclosures are stricken but Hinson may further amend by the court’s deadline |
| Whether radiologists’ and ED physician’s summaries were sufficient | Hinson left concise summaries for radiologists and ED physician | US argued those summaries failed to state specific opinions and bases | Court: Disclosed summaries for Drs. Lo, Domson, and Negron-Soto were insufficient and are stricken; Hinson may refile adequate summaries |
| Prejudice and relief: whether exclusion is warranted or whether leave to amend should be allowed | Hinson sought to preserve these witnesses and requested leave to cure deficiencies | US argued prejudice but sought exclusion of inadequate disclosures | Court: Granted motion to strike amended disclosures, permitted limited amendment by April 26, 2019, and extended discovery only to allow amendment—no further deadlines changed |
Key Cases Cited
(Background authorities cited in the opinion were primarily unpublished or WL-cited district opinions and advisory committee notes; the opinion did not reference any authority with an official reporter citation.)