Ophthalmology Expert’s Standard of Care Testimony Admitted

Plaintiff Raymond Dean Brown, a federal inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Center in Terre Haute, Indiana (“FCC Terre Haute”), brought this action against the Defendants, Dr. Elizabeth Trueblood, Dr. William E. Wilson, and Dr. David Lukens, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

Brown’s expert witness, Charles Howard, testified that Brown’s February 15, 2019, optometrist visit that indicated he had potentially suffered a stroke “should have immediately resulted in a hospital trip because these complaints had already occurred several times. Brown clearly was experiencing clots thrown from his atrial fibrillation.”

According to Brown, other practitioners viewed Wilson’s actions as falling far short of the standard of care.

Defendants argued that Howard’s opinions are unreliable because (1) Howard cannot provide legal conclusions or opinions on causation; (2) Howard is not qualified in cardiology, pulmonology, or neurology, and he therefore cannot testify as to these specialists’ determinations for Brown’s care; and (3) Howard provides no reliable scientific methodology for his opinions.

Ophthalmology Expert Witness

Charles Howard, MD, MMM, is retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), having served twenty (20) years as a Medical Officer. He joined the US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons as a Medical Officer and National Ophthalmology Consultant in 2002 at the Federal Medical Center in Devens, Massachusetts.

Moreover, Howard earned a Master of Medical Management degree (MMM) from the HJ Heinz School of Public Management at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. He is a Board-Certified Fellow of the American Board of Quality Assurance and Utilization Review Physicians (FABQAURP) and a Fellow of the American Institute of Health Care Quality Management (FAIHCQM).

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

Discussion by the Court

In this case, Howard is a trained ophthalmologist and served as a Medical Director for the BOP, the same role Wilson held when supervising the care of inmates with complex medical conditions like Brown. He need not be a specialist in cardiology or neurology to review the care Brown holistically received just as Wilson would have done.

Specifically, the Court found that Howard is sufficiently qualified to give opinions regarding Brown’s holistic care under Wilson as a Clinical Director and ophthalmological care involving Lukens.

Moreover, Howard’s medical opinions are not based on ‘junk science,’ but more than twenty years of medical experience. Although the Defendants contended that Howard did not have a firm foundation for basing his opinions regarding the appropriate standard of care, the Seventh Circuit has found that a doctor can rely on medical history, including a review of medical records.

Defendants filed a separate motion to exclude Howard’s opinions at trial, which the Court denied as moot. The Court considered Howard’s testimony and evidence in connection with Defendants’ summary judgment motions. Ultimately, the Court granted those motions, and final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants.

Held

The Court denied the Defendants’ partial motion to strike the testimony Charles Howard.

Key Takeaway:

Brown has therefore established by a preponderance of evidence that Howard meets the prerequisites of admissibility to offer a reliable opinion on the standards of care within his report and testimony.

And due to his specific knowledge of the circumstances and experience in the field, Howard’s testimony and report will assist the Court in understanding the evidence and determining the facts at issue in this case.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Brown V. Wilson
Docket Number:	2:21cv240
Court Name:	United States District Court, Indiana Southern
Order Date:	September 24, 2025