Mitchell v. Williams, 6:15-cv-00093

Plaintiff Karl C. Mitchell, an inmate diagnosed with Hepatitis C in March 2015, alleges Defendants (Warden Stanley Williams, Roy Sabine, Dr. Broome, and Georgia DOC) exhibited deliberate indifference by failing to provide appropriate treatment.
After diagnosis, limited testing occurred (genotype/viral load results in April 2015; abdominal ultrasound August 2015); no substantive follow-up or treatment for over a year.
Defendants say they follow DOC’s standardized Harvoni-evaluation protocol and attempted to schedule a gastroenterology consult, but no appointment appears to have been completed.
Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief; Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Court set an evidentiary hearing and reserved ruling on appointment of an expert.
Court found the medical-standard and delay issues require expert assistance under Fed. R. Evid. 706 and appointed Dr. David C. Whitehead as a neutral court expert to review records and opine on treatment history, necessity of delays, injury from delay, and recommended future care.
Court ordered Defendants to obtain and file sealed, up-to-date medical tests and exams within 21 days, directed DOC to bear the expert’s fees, and instructed Defendants to provide materials to reduce expert costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court-appointed expert is warranted under Rule 706	Mitchell: expert needed to evaluate standard of care, effects of delay, and support preliminary injunction	Defendants: did not explicitly oppose appointment but argue they follow DOC protocol; resources differ	Court: appointment appropriate and necessary to assist factfinder on medical-standard and delay issues
Who should pay for the court-appointed expert	Mitchell: indigent; would be unfair to require him to pay	DOC/Defendants: resource disparity noted implicitly; DOC already responsible for inmate care	Court: under Rule 706 may apportion fees; ordered DOC to pay full expert fees given its role and resources
Scope of expert’s duties	Mitchell: evaluate history, causation, prognosis, and need for immediate treatment	Defendants: implicit that gastroenterology review is routine under DOC process	Court: expert to review records and opine on treatment history, necessity and effect of delays, recommended future care, and any additional relevant opinions
Provision and handling of medical records and tests	Mitchell: needs current medical data for evaluation and injunction showing risk from delay	Defendants: should obtain records and schedule tests per DOC procedures	Court: ordered Defendants to obtain and seal comprehensive medical records and updated labs/imaging within 21 days; if unable, court will arrange collection

Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 1996) (court may appoint an expert under Rule 706 to avoid one-sided presentation where indigent plaintiff alleges inadequate care)
Gillentine v. Correctional Medical Services, [citation="556 F. App'x 845"] (11th Cir.) (Rule 706 authority extends to civil cases; court need not treat appointment as limited to criminal matters)
Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors for delay-based deliberate-indifference claims: seriousness, whether delay worsened condition, reason for delay)
Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 1997) (district court has discretion under Rule 706 to apportion expert costs, potentially to one side)
McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule 706 permits apportioning all expert costs to one party in appropriate circumstances)
Webster v. Sowders, 846 F.2d 1032 (6th Cir. 1988) (district court authority to apportion or excuse parties from expert costs under Rule 706)
Young v. City of Augusta, Ga., 59 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 1995) (discussing apportionment under Rule 706 and related authority)