Nursing Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions Limited
Posted on September 22, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This is a medical negligence case filed by Plaintiff Tanya Soule, as holder of Power of Attorney for Marlene Do, her mother, a currently disabled adult, and Long Do, her husband. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and manage Marelene’s ischemic stroke on December 11, 2019.
Defendants Blessing Hospital; Scott Hough, M.D.; Shaila O’Dear, R.N.; Jason Little, APRN; Kristin Hampton, R.N.; Angelo Liana, M.D.; and Rebecca Dennison, R.N. filed a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to bar Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Nurse Linda K. Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS, from testifying because she is not qualified to testify on future costs derivative of medical coding decisions and her life care plan is unsupported by medical evidence and fails to account for preexisting injuries.
Nursing Expert Witness
Linda K. Wilson-Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS is a certified nurse life care planner and certified brain injury specialist who has spent the last 19 years developing life care plans. She is a member of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners, where she spent two years as the National Conference Chairperson, a member of the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants, where she served as President of her chapter, and a member of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals.
Discussion by the Court
In seeking exclusion, Defendants noted that Schwieger conceded through her discovery deposition that she has no training, education, or experience in medical coding. Defendants claimed that this is significant because her cost opinions related to a portion of her life care plan derive from her independent medical coding decisions. Additionally, because her opinions are not supported by independent admissible evidence, Schwieger’s future cost opinions are irrelevant. Finally, Schwieger failed to account for whether Marlene would have needed the items and services in her life care plan due to her preexisting conditions.
B. Qualifications to Testify on Future Costs Using Medical Coding Decisions
Defendants contended that, despite Schwieger’s lack of training, education, or experience in the world of medical coding, she selected the second highest code and cost available for every physician service in Marlene’s life care plan.
Defendants contended that Schwieger’s life care plan opinion associated with (1) Physician Care; (2) Diagnostics; and (3) Physical, Occupational, and Speech-Language Therapies should be excluded because, based on the complexity of medical coding and given that she has not been trained or educated on how to select an appropriate medical code, she is not qualified under Daubert to render such opinions.
Given the nature and complexity of medical coding and the fact that Schwieger has no training, education, or experience in selecting medical codes for a patient, the Court concludes Schwieger lacked the requisite specialized knowledge under Rule 702 to select medical codes. Significantly, Schwieger did not base the medical codes she selected on codes that had previously been selected by healthcare providers. Instead, she independently selected medical codes that she believes may be selected by Marlene’s future healthcare providers. Her decision as to the appropriate code was “based on the complexity of what I know about [Marlene] and her issues.” However, Schwieger admitted that she is not qualified to make medical diagnoses and must rely upon decisions made by Marlene’s treating physicians.
Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to the extent it sought the exclusion of Schwieger’s life care plan opinions premised upon her medical coding selections: (1) Physician Care, (2) Diagnostics, and (3) Physical, Occupational, and Speech-Language Therapies.
C. Medical Evidence in Support of Life Care Plan
Defendants next contended that Schwieger’s life care plan is unsupported by medical evidence and fails to account for preexisting injuries. Specifically, she failed to collaborate with a physician for most of the opinions and did not account for Marlene’s preexisting conditions in developing her life care plan.
Plaintiffs argued that Schwieger relied on the medical opinions of a board-certified physical medicine and rehabilitation physician who has cared for thousands of stroke patients over the last 15 years, when drafting the life care plan. Schwieger also reviewed Marlene’s medical records and the deposition testimony of two of her medical providers. As a result, the Court concluded that the information is sufficiently reliable and relevant to assist the factfinder.
Defendants further noted that Schwieger was aware that, prior to her December 2019 stroke, Marlene had a debilitating condition known as rheumatoid arthritis, which resulted in her being on social security disability for two decades. Defendants contended that Schwieger failed to consider Marlene’s preexisting condition. However, while Plaintiffs appeared not to have disclosed any physicians to differentiate which items and services in Schwieger’s life care plan would have been needed if Marlene had not suffered a stroke, Mathew’s testimony touches on the issue.
Thus, the Court declined to bar Schwieger’s testimony as to the life care plans.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to bar the testimony of Linda Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS.
Key Takeaway:
While Schwieger lacked the requisite specialized knowledge under Rule 702 to select medical codes, Schwieger’s review of Marlene’s medical records, review of the deposition testimony of her treating physicians, her nursing assessment of Marlene, and Schwieger’s own education, training, and experience, all formed the factual basis of her life care plan.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Do Et Al V. Blessing Hospital, A Corporation Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:20cv1398 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Illinois Central |
| Order Date: | September 19, 2025 |
