Court Rejects Anesthesiology Expert’s Testimony Over Incomplete Medical Evidence
Posted on March 7, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
In a recent case involving a police shooting in Las Cruces, the admissibility of expert testimony became a central point of contention. The Plaintiff, who sustained injuries during the incident, sought to introduce Dr. Alen Ternian as a pain management expert. However, the Defendants challenged Ternian’s testimony, raising significant concerns about the completeness and reliability of his expert report.
Ternian was retained to provide expert opinions on the Plaintiff’s pain management as it related to the incident. However, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which requires a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons for them. Specifically, the Defendants pointed out that Ternian’s initial report lacked crucial supporting data and facts.
Anesthesiology Expert Witness
Alen Ternian is a board-certified anesthesiologist, with a history of practice that necessarily deals with the treatment of patients in pain. His employment history includes a medical practice and associate professor lecturer and examiner at Ceder Sinai Medical School.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant’s Objections
The core of the Defendants’ objection centered on the Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). They argued Ternian’s report lacked the underlying facts and data supporting his conclusions.
Defendants objected to the late and disorganized production of discovery materials, including a large volume of unorganized medical records and the delayed provision of Ternian’s curriculum vitae. This hindered their deposition preparation.
Defendants emphasized Ternian’s own statements revealed his opinion was incomplete, as he stated further medical imaging was necessary, but this was never obtained. Along with Rule 26, the Defendants also moved to exclude the opinions and testimony of Ternian, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702.
The Defendants requested the Court to exclude late-produced records, prevent further disclosures, exclude Ternian’s testimony, and/or hold a Daubert hearing.
Plaintiff’s Opposition:
The Plaintiff countered that they provided relevant medical records and information, arguing the Defendants had access to necessary records prior to Ternian’s deposition.
Plaintiff disputed discovery violation claims, asserting they were responsive to requests and did not disobey orders, arguing exclusion would be an improper sanction.
Plaintiff argued that during the deposition, the defense questioned Ternian about his initial report and his methodology, and therefore they had a fully informed deposition.
Court’s Observations
The Defendants provided the Plaintiff with multiple opportunities to rectify these deficiencies. However, instead of providing the requested data, the Plaintiff produced a large volume of unorganized medical records and delayed the disclosure of Ternian’s curriculum vitae until after his deposition. This delayed disclosure severely hampered the Defendants’ ability to adequately prepare for the deposition and challenge the expert’s opinions.
Rule 37 Sanctions and the “Harmless or Justified” Test:
The Court found that Ternian’s report was incomplete because it relied on medical imaging (CT scans and ultrasounds) that were never performed. Ternian himself acknowledged the need for further information to provide a complete medical opinion. This failure to obtain necessary data violated Rule 26, which led the Court to consider sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).
Under Rule 37(c)(1), if a party fails to provide information required by Rule 26(a), they are generally prohibited from using that information or witness at trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The Court considered factors such as prejudice to the Defendants, the ability to cure the prejudice, potential disruption of the trial, and the Plaintiff’s bad faith or willfulness.
The Court’s Ruling:
The Court determined that the Plaintiff’s violations of Rule 26 were not justified or harmless. The Defendants were prejudiced by the incomplete report and the late disclosure of records. The Court highlighted the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain necessary medical scans and the disorganized and delayed production of medical records. Although the Court did not find bad faith on the part of the Plaintiff, the other factors weighed heavily in favor of excluding Ternian’s testimony.
Held
The Court found that Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Alen Ternian, failed to comply with Rule 26’s expert disclosure requirements which was not substantially justified or harmless. Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude and Ternian was excluded from giving testimony at trial pursuant to Rule 37.
Key Takeaways:
- Timely and organized disclosure of expert information is essential for effective cross-examination and trial preparation.
- Compliance with Rule 26 is crucial for the admissibility of expert testimony.
- Failure to provide a complete and well-supported expert report can lead to exclusion of testimony under Rule 37.
- Courts consider various factors, including prejudice and the ability to cure, when determining whether a Rule 26 violation is harmless or justified.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Strickland V. City Of Las Cruces Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv116 |
| Court: | United States District Court, New Mexico |
| Order Date: | March 06, 2025 |
