Walker v. Target Corporation, 2:16-cv-00042

Background

Plaintiff Debra Walker slipped in a Target store and alleges permanently disabling injuries; husband asserts loss of consortium. Defendant moved to exclude certain medical expert testimony.
Plaintiffs designated multiple treating physicians and other medical providers as potential expert witnesses but failed to comply fully with Rule 26 disclosure requirements.
Some physician opinions were disclosed only in treatment records; others were never summarized in timely expert disclosures or were provided late (including questionnaire responses and an affidavit).
The court evaluated each provider under Rule 26(a)(2) and Rule 37(c)(1), applying Fifth Circuit factors for exclusion (importance, prejudice, cure, explanation).
Rulings: several providers are barred from testifying as experts but may testify as fact witnesses (limited to treatment-record facts); some providers’ testimony is limited to opinions contained in produced medical records; questionnaire responses and an untimely affidavit were excluded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of treating-physician expert disclosures under Rule 26	Treating physicians may testify without full Rule 26 report if testimony is based on treatment	Plaintiffs failed to disclose required summaries or reports for many treating providers	Testimony limited: if no timely report, physicians may only offer opinions contained in treatment records; otherwise excluded as experts
Failure to timely designate certain providers (Datz, Antinnes, Stewart, Baylis, Stout, Stitzman)	Plaintiffs withdrew or did not properly designate some providers	Defendant: absence of designation prejudices defense; expert testimony should be excluded	Court excluded expert testimony; allowed these providers to testify only as fact witnesses limited to basic treatment facts (no expert opinion)
Experts (Burns, Lee, Lambert) lacking expert reports	Plaintiffs argued supplemental responses provided summaries	Defendant argued lack of formal Rule 26 reports necessitates exclusion	Burns, Lee, Lambert may not offer expert testimony beyond facts/opinions contained in produced medical records; some testimony previously limited by earlier order
Questionnaire responses by treating physicians (for life-care planner)	Plaintiffs relied on questionnaires as part of expert evidence	Defendant: questionnaires were prepared for litigation, not treatment, so Rule 26 required expert reports	Questionnaire responses by Stitzman, Stewart, and Lambert excluded under Rule 37 as untimely/insufficient disclosures
Untimely affidavit of Dr. David Lee	Plaintiffs submitted affidavit with briefing	Defendant: affidavit was disclosed after discovery deadline; prejudicial	Lee's affidavit excluded under Rule 37; Lee may only testify consistent with treatment records already produced
Claim that fall caused need for dorsal column stimulator / RFA	Plaintiffs assert causation/need supported by their experts	Defendant contends no evidentiary support produced	Court deferred ruling on expert testimony regarding stimulator and radiofrequency ablation until resolution of Defendant’s partial summary-judgment motion on damages

Key Cases Cited

Kim v. Time Ins. Co., 267 F.R.D. 499 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (treating physician may testify as non-retained expert but scope limited)
Robbins v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses E., Inc., 223 F.R.D. 448 (S.D. Miss. 2004) (treating provider testimony limited to basic treatment facts when disclosure deficient)
Bradley v. United States, 866 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1989) (factors for excluding witnesses for discovery violations)
Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1990) (prejudice and cure considerations in discovery sanction analysis)
Harmon v. Ga. Gulf Lake Charles LLC, [citation="476 F. App'x 31"] (5th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing supplements from new expert opinions)