Nursing Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Preventability of Suicides Admitted

In February 2019, Jose Banda Pichardo (“Pichardo”) died by suicide while in custody at the Imperial County Sheriff’s Department Regional Adult Detention Facility (“ICRADF”). California Forensic Medical Group is a medical provider that contracted with Imperial County to provide medical and mental health care to inmates at ICRADF. Pichardo’s parents, Jose Trejo and Susana Banda, assert causes of action against CFMG for negligence and wrongful death arising from their son’s suicide.

CFMG’s expert, Kimberly Pearson, testified that “[d]espite utilizing nationally accepted standards and procedures related to suicide prevention, not every suicide (jail or otherwise) is preventable.”

Plaintiffs filed a motion to preclude Pearson from testifying that not all suicides are preventable.

Nursing Expert Witness

Kimberly Pearson has been serving in the healthcare industry both as a Registered Nurse and Manager/Administrator for over 40 years in various settings holding progressive management, leadership, and operational roles in multiple states.  She recently served as the Deputy Agency Director for the Orange County Health Care Agency — Correctional Health Services division since 2010.  

With an initial education as a Registered Nurse, her clinical experience includes Emergency, Trauma, Critical Care, and Flight medicine.  

Her recent role as the Deputy Agency Director for Correctional Health Services included executive administrative oversight for Adult Correctional Health Services, Juvenile Health Services, and the Orange County Conditional Release program for mentally ill offenders.

Want to know more about the challenges Kimberly Pearson has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

Discussion by the Court

Plaintiffs contended Pearson’s opinion that not all suicides are preventable is “a conclusory statement without factual basis in support” that “is nothing more than a regurgitation of someone else’s article and theories on suicide prevention.” 

Whether Pichardo’s death was preventable is a central issue in the case. Plaintiffs’ expert will argue that it was, and CFMG is entitled to present evidence and argument to the contrary.

The Court recognizes that that the opinion at issue, i.e., not all suicides in jail are preventable, is a general statement not specifically tied to Pichardo. But testimony that not all suicides are preventable nevertheless has a “tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” In other words, the testimony is relevant, and any perceived weaknesses in Pearson’s opinion are the proper subject of cross-examination and closing argument.

Plaintiffs did not specifically argue that Pearson’s testimony is not reliable, but they do contend that the testimony is based on hearsay. However, “under Rule 703, an expert may rely on hearsay ‘[i]f experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.'”

Pearson bases this opinion, in part, on statistics for jail suicides, and Plaintiffs did not challenge that this statistical information is reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

Held

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude Kimberly Pearson from testifying that not all suicides are preventable.

Key Takeaway:

Shaky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion. The Court recognizes that that the opinion at issue, i.e., not all suicides in jail are preventable, is a general statement not specifically tied to Pichardo. But testimony that not all suicides are preventable nevertheless has a “tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Therefore, any perceived weaknesses in Pearson’s opinion are the proper subject of cross-examination and closing argument.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Trejo Et Al V. County Of Imperial Et Al
Docket Number:	3:20cv1465
Court:	United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Order Date:	September 12, 2024