United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
MARIA GONZALEZ, Individually and as the Natural Guardian of NELSON ROMERO, a Minor, and SALMA GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs,
v.
ADT LLC, ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ADT SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY LLC, and ERIC HARDISTY, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
PHILIP
P. SIMON JUDGE
The
tragic facts underlying this case involve a home invasion and
brutal assault on plaintiffs Maria Gonzalez, her 10-year-old
son Nelson Romero, and 16-year-old daughter Salma Gonzalez,
who claim that ADT alarm company bears responsibility for the
occurrence. ADT LLC, the sole remaining defendant, has filed
two motions in limine seeking the exclusion of expert
witnesses designated by the plaintiffs.
Under
Fed.R.Evid. 702, witnesses qualified by “knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education” are
sometimes able to offer opinion testimony. The four
additional requirements for such testimony are that:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
methods to the facts of the case.
Id. Rule 703 broadens the permissible bases of an
expert's opinion testimony: “An expert may base an
opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been
made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the
particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of
facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need
not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted.”
Dr.
Sean Conrin, Psychiatrist
ADT
challenges the anticipated testimony of Sean Conrin, M.D., an
assistant professor of psychiatry at University of Illinois
Hospital at Chicago. Based on Dr. Conrin's review of
factual material about the home invasion, as well as records
of the plaintiffs' medical treatment afterward,
Conrin's expert report expresses several opinions,
including these. The events were traumatic and are associated
with psychiatric consequences for all three plaintiffs. Maria
developed post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive
disorder, which were linked to her subsequent suicide
attempt. Salma also developed symptoms meeting the criteria
for PTSD and major depressive disorder. A full assessment and
diagnosis are not available for Nelson but severe negative
impacts cannot be ruled out. All three plaintiffs are likely
to “continue to be negatively impacted and require
ongoing medical care.” [DE 124-1 at 3; see
also DE 124-1 at 7.]
ADT's
challenge to Dr. Conrin's report centers on the
undisputed fact that Dr. Conrin did not personally interview
or evaluate the plaintiffs. ADT contends that this means Dr.
Conrin's testimony “does not follow a discernable
[sic] scientific methodology and is not the product of
scientific analysis.” [DE 124 at 4.] ADT has obtained
the report of a licensed clinical psychologist, David N.
Lombard, Ph.D., critiquing Dr. Conrin's
report.[1] Lombard concludes that Conrin cannot
ethically diagnose any of the plaintiffs without having
performed his own independent evaluation, and notes that
Conrin did not “interview the treating providers to
confirm any of the data” relayed in their records. [DE
124-3 at 4.] With regard to Salma in particular, Lombard is
critical of Conrin's conclusions that her symptoms are
sufficiently severe to support diagnoses of PTSD and major
depressive disorder, when her treating provider did not make
those diagnoses. [Id.] ADT characterizes
Conrin's report and opinions as failing to meet the
standard of care for psychiatric evaluation, and therefore
unreliable and inadmissible.
In
response, plaintiffs argue that “ADT seeks to hold Dr.
Conrin to the professional standards required for a
diagnosing, treating psychologist in a clinical setting, as
opposed to an independent medical examiner performing a
medical records review.” [DE 130 at 4.] Rather than for
his own diagnoses, “Dr. Conrin was retained to provide
his opinions with respect to the diagnoses of Major
Depressive Disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that
were diagnosed by Plaintiffs' mental health providers,
[and] to provide expert testimony regarding the nature,
causes, and effects of these conditions.” [Id.
at 4-5.] Commentators observe that “[t]he main effect
of Rule 703 is to permit experts to rely on evidence that
would otherwise be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.”
The New Wigmore, A Treatise on Evidence: Expert Evidence,
§4.6 (2d ed. 2018). “Doctors, for example, may
rely on the reports of other medical professionals.”
Id. This is reflected in the Advisory Committee
Notes for Rule 703, which consider a physician's
diagnosis, relying on “information from numerous
sources and of considerable variety” to be supported by
“[h]is validation, expertly performed and subject to
cross-examination, ” which “ought to suffice for
judicial purposes.” The Seventh Circuit has affirmed
what the rules advisory notes and commentators have observed:
“Medical professionals have long been expected to rely
on the opinions of other medical professionals in forming
their opinions.” Walker v. Soo Line R. Co.,
208 F.3d 581, 588 (7th Cir. 2000).
Dr.
Conrin's deposition testimony expressed his awareness of
the limits of his opinions. When asked if he is
“ethically permitted to diagnose somebody with a
disorder if you have not seen them in person, ” he
responded, “No. But I can - not as an initial one. I
can agree with others' diagnoses. I can review a case and
have an opinion on it.” [DE 124-2 at 4.] To that
extent, I find Dr. Conrin's opinions about the
psychiatric treatment history of the three plaintiffs
following the home invasion to be reliable and admissible
expert testimony under Rules 702 and 703. Dr. Conrin's
report also contains general material describing and
explaining the conditions of PTSD and major depressive
disorder, without specific reference to the plaintiffs. ADT
does not challenge this portion of Dr. Conrin's report.
The
aspect of Dr. Conrin's report that I find more troubling
is his proffered opinion that all three plaintiffs should be
expected to “continue to experience negative, and
potentially long term, impacts on their health” and
“require ongoing medical care.” [DE 124-1 at 7,
3.] This opinion appears to be based in part on his expert
knowledge of the “known impacts of similar trauma, in
general” and “known research regarding long-term
outcomes.” [Id. at 3, 7.] But the basis for
applying such a conclusion to these plaintiffs as patients is
not provided in Dr. ...