United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS AND
TERI MASSEY'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM ELICITING
EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT MICHAEL BERGMAN,
M.D. [ECF No. 49]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Court Judge
October 8, 2016, Alisant Scott experienced a spontaneous
rupture of a mass in her right breast - a problem she started
complaining about on September 23, 2016. Because of the
rupture, doctors performed a simple mastectomy.
suit concerns the treatment and care Scott received before
the rupture and mastectomy. Scott alleges Defendants Teri
Massey, N.P. and Correct Care Solutions' actions are
liable for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and medical malpractice under Michigan law.
filed this motion to preclude Scott from eliciting standard
of care and proximate cause testimony from Michael Bergman,
M.D. The proximate cause testimony that Defendants seek to
preclude appears to be that earlier intervention would have
resulted in a better outcome for Scott.
says she intends to call another expert to testify on the
applicable standard of care. As such, that issue is
Dr. Bergman's proposed proximate cause testimony, the
Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.
RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
September 23, 2016, while detained at the Oakland County
jail, Scott requested immediate medical attention due to a
swollen right breast. In her health service request form, she
noted a previous history of similar issues with her left
breast. On September 25th, Elizabeth Goodrich, R.N. - who at
one time was a defendant but is no longer a party - examined
Scott and noted: a 6x6 inch mass around Scott's nipple;
her breast was warm to the touch; the skin around her nipple
was red; Scott's pain was an 8 on a 10-point scale; and
doctors removed a mass from Scott's left breast in 2010
spoke with Defendant Teri Massey, N.P. Massey verbally
ordered bactrim twice daily for ten days and motrin for seven
scheduled a follow-up for Scott on September 28th with a
doctor. Neither party addresses what happened at this
follow-up, or whether it even took place.
September 29th, Massey met with Scott. Massey noted
Scott's continued complaints of pain, swelling, and
redness to her right breast. Scott indicated her breast
issues started on September 23rd, and that antibiotics did
not alleviate her pain. Scott told Massey about her earlier
left breast issues that resulted in cyst removal surgery.
Massey ordered an ultrasound for Scott, prescribed mobic and
ice packs, and discontinued the bactrim.
September 30th, doctors performed an ultrasound on
Scott's right breast. The ultrasound revealed four
masses. Doctors recommended a mammogram and biopsy.
October 1st, Scott submitted a second medical request. She
again described severe pain and wrote that her condition was
not “minor.” On October 7th she submitted a third
request. She stated her breast was infected and complained
that she'd been in pain for over two weeks.
Saturday, October 8th, Scott underwent a mammogram
examination. Doctors admitted her into the hospital. Scott
developed a fever and a physician scheduled a surgery to
drain her right breast. Scott's breast mass ruptured the
night before the scheduled surgery. Dr. Dana Busch elected to
perform a simple mastectomy following the rupture; most of
Scott's breast tissue was necrotic.
Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 702 govern the admissibility of
expert testimony. Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharm.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). Rule 702:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence ...