The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOANNA CAUSEY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 8:21-cv-02046-AAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant United States of America (USA) moves to exclude the
causation opinions of treating providers Dr. Donald Pethel, Dr. Howard
Wright, Dr. Tejpaul Pannu, Dr. Karl Freydl, Dr. Fredrick Junn, and Doctor of
Physical Therapy (DPT) Adam Vliet. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff Joanna Causey
responds in opposition. (Doc. 63).
I. BACKGROUND
This action concerns a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November
10, 2019. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 6–9). The accident involved USA employee Kenneth
Weber and Ms. Causey. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8). Ms. Causey underwent various medical
treatments following the accident. (Doc. 68, ¶ 1).
In this motion to exclude testimony, USA does not dispute the challenged
providers’ diagnoses. (Doc. 56, pp. 1–2). Instead, USA contends the providers
cannot establish a legally permissible causal link between the diagnoses and
Ms. Causey’s accident, and therefore their causation testimony should be
excluded. (Doc. 56, pp. 1–2). In response, Ms. Causey indicates she will not be
introducing causation opinions from Dr. Wright, Dr. Fredyl, or DPT Vliet at
trial. (Doc. 63, p. 2). Thus, USA’s request is moot as to those providers. As for
Dr. Pethel, Dr. Pannu, and Dr. Junn, Ms. Causey argues these providers are
fully capable of giving sufficient, reliable opinions. (Id.).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 instructs the courts on how to “perform the
critical ‘gatekeeping’ function concerning the admissibility of expert scientific
evidence.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (en
banc) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579,
589 n.7, 597 (1993)). Fed. R. Evid. 702 states:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an
opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court
that it is more likely than not that: (a) the expert’s scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact
to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the
testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is
the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert's
opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods
to the facts of the case.
Rule 702 demands courts “ensure that any and all scientific testimony or
evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589.
However, in a bench trial, “[t]here is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the
gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for h[er]self.” United States
v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005).
III. ANALYSIS
USA argues the causation opinions offered by Dr. Pethel, Dr. Pannu, and
Dr. Junn are based solely on temporal proximity and must be excluded. (Doc.
56, pp. 13–21). Ms. Causey argues the court, as factfinder in this trial, can
appropriately weigh the causation testimony and need not rule in advance to
exclude it. (Doc. 63, p. 3).
The Southern District of Florida addressed similar arguments at the
pretrial stage in Cedant v. United States. No. 19-24877-CIV, 2024 WL 3817543,
at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2024). The defendant in Cedant, who is the same
defendant in this case, moved to exclude the causation testimony of two
treating physicians in a case set for a bench trial. Id. at *2. Even noting USA’s
arguments for exclusion generally to be persuasive, the court refused to
prematurely exclude the treating physicians’ testimony because “[t]he Court is
equipped to appropriately weigh or discount the experts’ testimony, and the
Court therefore need not rule in advance to exclude their causation testimony.”
Id. at *3. “In a non-jury trial little harm can result from the reception of
evidence that could perhaps be excluded because the judge is presumably
competent to disregard what [s]he thinks [s]he should not have heard, or to
discount it for practical and sensible reasons.” Id. (quoting Multi-Medical
Convalescent & Nursing Center, 550 F.2d 974, 977 (4th Cir. 1977)).
During trial, the court will exclude any testimony that does not meet the
standards of Rule 702, but it is not necessary to make those determinations
before the opportunity to hear Dr. Pethel, Dr. Pannu, and Dr. Junn’s full
testimony at trial. See Huff v. United States, No. 19-14100-CIV, 2022 WL
1126713. at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2022), report and recommendation adopted,
No. 19-14100-CIV, 2022 WL 1114960 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2022) (“The court,
sitting as trier of fact, is in the best position to distinguish between persuasive
and shaky expert evidence at trial and it is thus accepted that the importance
of the pretrial exclusion process contemplated by Daubert is lessened in that
situation.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the proceeding will be conducted as a bench trial. As a result,
there will be no jury present to mislead or confuse and the court is well
equipped to weigh or discount causation testimony at trial. Accordingly, USA’s
Motion to Exclude The Causation Opinions of Treating Providers (Doc. 56) as
to Dr. Pethel, Dr. Pannu, and Dr. Junn is DENIED. The motion (Doc. 56) as
to Dr. Wright, Dr. Fredyl, and DPT Vliet is otherwise DENIED AS MOOT.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on December 19, 2024.
Aranda. Arne (de Sarin.
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge