Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Medical Negligence Excluded
Posted on September 18, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Nicholas Price, a former Virginia inmate, filed this civil rights action against Defendant Kyle Smith, M.D. (“Dr. Smith”), alleging that Smith was
deliberately indifferent to Price’s serious medical needs after he sustained significant knee injuries while playing basketball at Augusta Correctional Center (“ACC”).
Smith filed a motion to exclude the medical opinions of Price’s expert witness, Dr. Michael J. Katz.
Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness
Michael Jesse Katz is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery. He has been a practicing physician for 40 years. He has treated thousands of patients with patellar tendon ruptures over the course of my career. Katz has served as an expert in many knee cases in the past.
Discussion by the Court
Smith filed a motion to exclude the medical opinions of Katz on two main grounds: (1) that Katz’s expert designation does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; and (2) that his medical opinions are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
1. Katz’s expert medical report fails to comply with the disclosure
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
Katz’s expert report did not fully comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Although the report contains some of the necessary components, it omitted several critical elements mandated by the Rule and thus falls short of the required standard for expert disclosures.
Katz stated his principal conclusion—that the delay in treatment for Price’s bilateral patellar tendon ruptures constituted a deviation from the standard of care and was the proximate cause of Price’s worsened condition. He further noted that such injuries require prompt surgical repair.
While this constitutes a basic statement of opinion, the Court held that it is brief and conclusory, lacking meaningful detail or explanation. Courts within the Fourth Circuit have found conclusory findings insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i).
While Katz asserted that the ACC’s delay in providing medical care fell below the standard of care, he did not define the standard, nor did he explain the factual or clinical basis for his opinion.
Furthermore, Katz’s report failed to include a list of prior cases in which he has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the last four years, in violation of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v).
In sum, the Court held that Katz’s expert report failed to satisfy multiple subsections of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), including those related to the basis for his opinions, prior expert testimony, and compensation.
2. Katz’s medical opinion is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702
While Katz listed the records he reviewed, they consisted solely of Augusta Health records from March 13 to March 24, 2021—after the alleged delay in care had already occurred. He did not review any medical records from ACC, the facility where the delay allegedly took place, nor did he examine any documentation regarding the care provided by Smith, the sole remaining Defendant in the case. Additionally, he opined that the delay caused the injury to worsen, but did not identify how it worsened, or any facts or records upon which he bases this opinion. The last medical records he reviewed were Augusta Health’s discharge records, eight days after surgery—when Price was still wearing knee immobilizers. He did not review the condition of Price’s knee, or the treatment thereof, before arriving at Augusta Health, nor did he evaluate the rehabilitation records that occurred after his stay at Augusta Health.
These omissions are critical. Katz’s conclusion—that the delay in treatment at ACC caused Price’s injury to worsen—depended upon knowing what care was provided, when, and by whom. Without having reviewed any records from ACC, the Court held that his opinion rests on an incomplete and selective factual basis.
Moreover, Katz did not define what the standard of care is, did not identify how it was violated, and did not indicate what constitutes “prompt” treatment under the circumstances. Katz was asked to opine on a question rooted in negligence: whether the delay in treatment “fell below the minimum standard of care.” But this did not address the constitutional threshold of deliberate indifference and thus had no relevance to the central legal question in this case.
Held
The Court granted Smith’s motion to exclude the medical opinions of Price’s expert witness, Dr. Michael Katz.
Key Takeaway:
Katz’s report failed to satisfy any of the four foundational prongs of Rule 702. It is not based on sufficient facts or data, did not reflect or apply reliable principles or methods, and is not relevant to the legal claim of deliberate indifference.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Price V. White Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 5:23cv10 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Virginia Western |
| Order Date: | September 17, 2025 |
