Testimony of Family Medicine Expert Witness on the Issue of Damages Declared a Nullity
Posted on December 12, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
A patient brought a health care liability action against his psychiatrist and the psychiatrist’s employer, alleging the psychiatrist engaged in improper sexualized conduct that caused him psychological injury.
Plaintiff Tray Simmons is a survivor of childhood rape which he experienced in 2010. Simmons alleged that Dr. Shahidul Islam encouraged him to read the chapter of his book Layers aloud in which he described the 2010 rape while Islam visibly touched himself, made physical contact with Simmons, and backed Simmons into the corner of the office.
Plaintiff’s expert, Sherri Studstill, gave conflicting testimony relating to the issue of damages.
In her affidavit, Studstill asserted that “[t]here is evidence that Simmons suffered monetary and mental health harm as a result from either the alleged events occurring in Islam’s office or the documented events from the recorded [phone] calls.”
However, during her deposition, Studstill said that she “didn’t go into damages” and that she only believed damages for emotional distress were “possible” based on Simmons’s allegations, the opinion said.
Family Medicine Expert Witness
Sherri Studstill is a licensed physician who has a background practicing in Family Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Occupational Medicine, Sports Medicine, and Urgent Care Medicine, and holds a Masters in Public Health Degree with a focus on Behavioral Science and Health Science.
Discussion by the Court
Relying on the cancellation rule, the trial court determined a conflict existed between the Studstill’s affidavit and deposition testimony relating to the issue of damages.
The trial court concluded that Studstill’s deposition testimony triggered the cancellation rule and invalidated her earlier opinions related to Simmons’s alleged damages.
The judge cited 2019 Tennessee Supreme Court case law in TWB Architects v. Braxton , which established that when a witness makes contradictory statements, “those statements cancel each other out and are considered to be ‘no evidence’ of that fact.”
Appellate Judge Jeffrey Usman cannot find error in the trial court’s analysis in the present case, applying the cancelation rule and rendering Studstill’s testimony on the issue of damages a nullity.
Held
The Court held that Sherri Studstill’s testimony on the issue of damages was inadmissible.
Key Takeaway:
Studstill indicated in her affidavit that as an expert she had concluded that Simmons had suffered damages as a result of Islam’s negligent professional conduct. In her deposition, however, Studstill disclaimed any such conclusion. She indicated that damages were a possibility but that she had not made any determination that Simmons had suffered any actual damages. As to the question of whether Studstill offered expert testimony as to damages, these statements are contradictory. Critically, no admissible explanation from Studstill was offered addressing the contradiction. Therefore, the appellate court cannot find error in the trial court’s analysis in the present case, applying the cancelation rule and rendering Studstill’s testimony on the issue of damages a nullity.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Tray Simmons V. Dr. Shahidul Islam Et Al. |
| Docket Number: | M2023-01698-COA-R3-CV |
| Court: | Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville |
| Order Date: | December 03, 2024 |
