Maluff v. SAMS EAST, INC.
0:17-cv-60264
S.D. Fla.Nov 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Maluff alleges a Sam's Club employee negligently pushed a pallet jack into his back, causing severe lower-back injuries that led to lumbar fusion surgery.
- Sam's East retained Nicole Bonaparte as a medical coding and billing expert to challenge the reasonableness of Maluff's medical charges.
- Maluff moved to strike Bonaparte's testimony as irrelevant and unreliable; Sam's East defended its relevance to disputing reasonableness of medical expenses.
- Sam's East moved to limit testimony of Maluff's treating physician, Dr. Kingsley Chin, seeking to preclude opinions on causation and on the reasonableness of medical bills.
- Dr. Chin provided a Rule 26(a)(2)(C) treating-physician disclosure; he did not provide a full expert report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Nicole Bonaparte's expert testimony on coding/billing | Bonaparte is unqualified to opine on injuries/treatment and her testimony won't assist the trier of fact | Bonaparte can rebut reasonableness of medical expenses and contest billing practices | Granted: Bonaparte's testimony excluded as not helpful on injuries or treatment; billing coding expert excluded under facts here |
| Whether treating physician may testify on causation without Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report | Dr. Chin treated Maluff and may offer causation opinions derived during care | Sam's East: Dr. Chin didn't need to determine cause to treat, and no 26(a)(2)(B) report was produced | Granted in part: Dr. Chin is precluded from offering causation opinions because no 26(a)(2)(B) report and records show cause wasn't necessary to treatment |
| Whether treating physician may testify on reasonableness of medical bills without full expert report | Dr. Chin may opine on reasonableness as part of treatment knowledge | Sam's East argues Dr. Chin never assessed reasonableness during treatment | Denied in part: Dr. Chin may testify about reasonableness of medical bills as a treating physician under 26(a)(2)(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- Castellanos v. Target Corp., [citation="568 F. App'x 886"] (11th Cir.) (affirming exclusion of Bonaparte-like billing testimony where dispute concerned reasonableness, not fabrication)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling, 81 So.3d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (plaintiff must show medical expenses were reasonable and necessary)
- Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P'ship v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove reasonableness of medical expenses)
- Wilson v. Taser Int'l, Inc., [citation="303 F. App'x 708"] (11th Cir.) (exclude treating physician causation testimony when cause was unnecessary for treatment)
- United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir.) (treating physician should not opine on causation if not required for treatment)
- United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.) (expert testimony must assist the trier of fact)