Family Medicine Expert Witness’ Testimony on Landlord’s Health Condition Excluded
Posted on December 30, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
In this fair-housing action, Intervenor Beverly Boucher sought to rent an apartment from Defendants Madison Property, L.L.C. (Madison Property) and Andrew Brenner (together, Defendants). Defendants declined to rent to Boucher after she informed them that she wished to live in the apartment with an emotional support animal (ESA), a cat.
In Count I, Plaintiff United States of America (Plaintiff) claims that Defendants refused to lease a unit to Boucher because of her disability, and in Count II, Plaintiff claims that Defendants refused to grant Boucher’s request for an accommodation to the apartment building’s no-pets policy.
Defendants retained a family medicine expert witness, Stuart W. Steichen, an osteopath, and Brenner’s brother-in-law, to opine on Brenner’s health condition. Plaintiff, however, filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert, Stuart Steichen, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Family Medicine Expert Witness
Stuart W. Steichen specializes in family medicine. He has been practicing for over 20 years and is affiliated with Allina Health United Hospital. Steichen received his medical degree from the Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine.
Discussion by the Court
Steichen’s Testimony
During the litigation, Defendants submitted a letter on Steichen’s clinic letterhead stating that Andrew Brenner had been under his care for recurrent upper respiratory infections. The letter explained that Brenner’s immune system was significantly weakened, making him highly susceptible to infections. It also pointed out that Brenner required a clean environment, free from irritants, to avoid illness. Exposure to cat dander, in particular, was identified as an allergen that could trigger respiratory issues.
Steichen testified that Brenner’s severe kidney disease contributed to his weakened immune system. However, he admitted that he had never discussed Brenner’s kidney condition with him or reviewed his medical records. Instead, Steichen learned about Brenner’s kidney health from Brenner’s sister, who is not a medical professional.
Analysis
The Court observed that Steichen’s testimony aimed to support the Defendants’ argument that denying Boucher’s accommodation request was justified because having a cat would harm Brenner’s health. However, Steichen first treated Brenner in late 2021, months after Brenner had already denied Boucher’s request in March 2021. Furthermore, Steichen’s knowledge of Brenner’s immune condition did not come from treating him. Instead, Steichen learned about Brenner’s condition through conversations with Brenner’s sister, who is not a physician. Steichen never reviewed Brenner’s medical records or discussed his kidney condition with him.
Given these facts, the Court concluded that Steichen’s opinion would not help the jury and should be excluded from the trial.
Held
The Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Defendants’ family medicine expert witness, Stuart W. Steichen.
Key Takeaway:
The Court excluded the testimony of the Defendants’ expert Stuart Steichen because his opinions lacked a proper foundation and would not be helpful to the jury. Steichen’s testimony was meant to support the Defendants’ argument that allowing Boucher to live with her emotional support animal (ESA) would harm Brenner’s health due to his weakened immune system.
Steichen claimed Brenner’s condition made him vulnerable to issues from cat dander. However, Steichen never treated Brenner for his kidney condition, the primary cause of his weakened immune system. He learned about Brenner’s health from Brenner’s sister, who is not a medical professional and did not review Brenner’s medical records. Steichen also started treating Brenner after the ESA request was denied. The Court found his testimony would not assist the jury and excluded it.
Case Details:
| Case caption: | United States v. Madison Prop., L.L.C. |
| Docket Number: | 0:22cv2831 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Dated: | December 27, 2024 |
