Family Medicine Expert’s Opinions on Opposing Experts’ Qualifications Excluded
Posted on June 12, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The claims against La-Norma Ramirez and Washington County stem from Plaintiff Danyale Blackmore’s booking and release at the Washington County Jail.
Blackmore alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was allegedly strip-searched at the Jail.
Plaintiff sought to exclude or limit at trial the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Dr. Kennon Tubbs.
Family Medicine Expert Witness
Kennon Tubbs is a licensed medical doctor and board-certified family practice physician with nearly 30 years of experience as a practicing physician, including numerous years as a physician at the Utah State Prison and various jails.
Discussion by the Court
Tubbs’ testimony and opinions regarding correctional standards are beyond the scope of his expert designation and are not relevant
The Defendant appointed Tubbs to evaluate and challenge the opinions of the Plaintiff and her experts concerning the medical and mental health treatment provided during her arrest and booking. However, the Court found that Tubbs’ expert report went beyond that role—it included opinions stating that the Washington County Jail’s booking and release policies, as well as the Defendant’s actions, complied with correctional standards. The Court noted that these opinions were not backed by any analysis in his report and fell outside the scope of what he was designated to testify about.
Tubbs is qualified to offer expert testimony
The Plaintiff claimed that Tubbs was not qualified to give expert testimony because his background is in general medical care, not in diagnosing trauma in women. However, the Plaintiff did not cite any legal authority to support this argument, and there is nothing in the record showing that Tubbs lacks the necessary knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education to testify about the medical and mental health treatment the Plaintiff received during her arrest and booking.
The Court also found that the Defendant had adequately shown that Tubbs is qualified to provide the expert testimony for which he was designated.
Tubbs’ anticipated testimony and opinions are reliable and admissible under Rule 702
Plaintiff argued that Tubbs’ methods and opinions are unreliable because he did not examine Plaintiff; he speculates on facts; he misinterprets the criteria for diagnosing PTSD; and he is biased against and dismissive of Plaintiff’s version of the events and of women in general.
However, the Court found that Tubbs’ report and deposition showed he had reviewed enough information to support his critiques of the Plaintiff and her experts concerning her medical and mental health treatment related to her arrest and booking. The Court also noted that Tubbs used specific criteria and relied on sufficient facts to form his opinions challenging their conclusions.
Tubbs may not offer ad hominem opinions, or testimony and opinions that invade the exclusive roles of the judge and jury
In his report and deposition, Tubbs offered opinions about the qualifications, training, and personal habits of the Plaintiff’s experts. While he is allowed to critique their opinions on the Plaintiff’s medical and mental health treatment related to her arrest and booking, the Court ruled that his comments on their qualifications crossed the line—such matters fall solely within the judge’s authority to decide.
Moreover, Tubbs’ report and deposition testimony also included commentary and opinions regarding the weight of certain evidence, as well as the motivations of Plaintiff and her experts. The Court made it clear that Tubbs is not allowed to give testimony or opinions that interfere with the jury’s job of evaluating the evidence and deciding which witnesses are believable.
However, this determination did not preclude Tubbs from offering testimony and opinions that involve certain disputed facts. Moreover, the Court decided that Tubbs may testify and opine regarding the medical effects of alcohol use and intoxication on an individual; how an individual’s alcohol use and intoxication affect or have implications in the proper diagnosis of medical and mental health conditions; and that if Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of her arrest and booking, how her intoxication affects Plaintiff and her experts’ opinions regarding Plaintiff’s medical and mental health treatment as it relates to her arrest and booking.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Dr. Kennon Tubbs.
Key Takeaway:
The Court held that Tubbs is allowed to provide relevant testimony and opinions that critique the views of the Plaintiff and her experts on the medical and mental health treatment the Plaintiff received during her arrest and booking. If he lays an adequate foundation and meets the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, he may also testify about the applicable medical standards of care during that time at the Washington County Jail.
However, he is not permitted to testify that the jail’s policies, procedures, or the Defendant’s actions met correctional standards. He is also barred from offering opinions about the qualifications of the Plaintiff’s experts or the reliability of their methods, as those issues fall solely within the judge’s authority.
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Mental Health Expert’s PTSD Diagnosis Was Deemed Reliable
Corrections Expert’s Opinions on the Strip Search Excluded
Social Work Expert’s Testimony on PTSD Symptoms in Adult Women Admitted
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Blackmore V. Ramirez |
| Docket Number: | 4:21cv26 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Utah |
| Order Date: | May 27, 2025 |
