Law & Legal Expert Witness’ Testimony Excluded Despite Her Experience Assessing the “Cognitive Abilities” of Adults
Posted on November 11, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case is an interpleader action to determine the rightful beneficiary of a $114,000 life insurance policy. The dispute centers around whether Gary Lee Alexander (“Gary”) had the capacity to execute a change in beneficiary designation on September 3, 2020, and whether Defendant Marcia Gayle (Gayle) unduly influenced Gary to make that change.
In response, Gayle filed a Motion to Strike and a supporting Memorandum, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Jamie K. Ducharme and Guardian Ad Litem Ann H. Larkin, Esq. (“Ms. Larkin” or the “GAL”). Gayle argued that the GAL’s testimony should be struck, claiming it was inadmissible hearsay and lacked foundation. Gayle also contended that Alexander could not demonstrate the GAL was qualified as an expert under Rule 702. Additionally, Gayle argued that Dr. Ducharme’s testimony should be excluded because it lacked sufficient factual support.
Law & Legal Expert Witness
Ann H. Larkin is a Shareholder at Midgett Preti Olansen. She focuses her practice on estate planning, estate and trust administration, special needs planning and guardianship and conservatorship matters. Also, Larkin is certified by the Virginia Supreme Court as a guardian ad litem for incapacitated adults.
Larkin graduated cum laude from the State University of New York at Binghamton with a B.A. in English Literature and Rhetoric. She received her Juris Doctor from William and Mary Law School. After law school Larkin was a law clerk to the Honorable Robert W. Wooldridge, Jr. of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Virginia. Moreover, she practiced in the litigation group at a Washington, D.C. law firm, served as an assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney in Fairfax County, Virginia, and worked as a staff attorney for a Commissioner of Accounts in Norfolk, Virginia.
Neuropsychology Expert Witness
Jamie Kollar Ducharme is a licensed clinical psychologist who is board certified in clinical neuropsychology.
She specializes in head injury/concussion assessment, capacity evaluations, workman’s compensation, consultation. and medical records review. Moreover, she is a member of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology as well as the American Psychological Association.
Discussion by the Court
1. Ann Larkin, Esq.
Defendant Melissa Alexander, Gary’s widow, contended that Larkin is qualified to testify as an expert because she is experienced as a GAL in assessing the “cognitive abilities” of adults to determine whether they need a guardian or conservator.
However, Gayle argued that Larkin’s testimony is more appropriately characterized as lay witness testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.
Basically, a GAL is a lawyer tasked with investigating facts and applying the law to those facts. That the GAL frequently assesses the competency of others alone does not satisfy the Court that she has any “specialized knowledge” that would help the trier of fact.
Moreover, there is no recognized area of expertise associated with interviewing third parties, doctors, and others to determine whether someone needs a guardian or conservator. Any testimony that the GAL would provide is therefore not the “product of reliable principles and methods,” and would not reflect “a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of [this] case.”
2. Dr. Jamie Ducharme
To begin with, Ducharme conducted a neuropsychological evaluation of Gary for the state court guardianship proceeding in November 2020 (the “2020 Evaluation”).
However, Gayle argued that Ducharme’s testimony is not based on sufficient facts and is not reliable within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
While many of Gayle’s objections may be proper subjects for cross-examination, they are insufficient to persuade the Court to exclude Ducharme. The Court found that Ducharme is a qualified expert proposing to testify to scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding or determining a fact in issue. In addition, her opinion is based upon sufficient facts and data and is a product of reliable principles and methods. That Ducharme did not consider all of the same materials that Gayle’s rebuttal witness considers is not a proper basis for exclusion. Furthermore, the Court did not find that the probative value of such testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the bench at trial.
Held
- The Court granted Defendant Marcia Gayle’s motion to exclude the testimony of Ann Larkin.
- The Court denied Defendant Marcia Gayle’s motion to exclude the testimony of Jamie Ducharme.
Key Takeaways:
A GAL is a lawyer tasked with investigating facts and applying the law to those facts. That the GAL frequently assesses the competency of others alone does not satisfy the Court’s requirement of any “specialized knowledge” that would help the trier of fact. Basically, there is no recognized area of expertise associated with interviewing third parties, doctors, and others to determine whether someone needs a guardian or conservator.
Therefore, Larkin is not an expert within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and her testimony is not admissible as expert testimony.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Minnesota Life Insurance Company vs. Melissa D Alexander, et al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv207 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division |
| Order Date: | November 4, 2024 |
