This post focuses on one of eight motions in limine ruled on in the April 14, 2011 Order in Altheim v. GEICO General Insurance Co., No. 8:10-cv-156-T-24 TBM, 2011 WL 1429735 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2011).
Specifically, this post focuses on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony From Defendant’s Expert Witness and Others, and the court’s disposition of that motion. See id. at **2-3.
The Defendant’s expert witness is Kathy Maus, Esquire of Tallahassee, Florida. Her expertise caused her to be retained by a Pensacola, Florida attorney to be an expert witness in an uninsured/underinsured motorist “bad faith lawsuit” pending in federal court in Tampa, Florida. Id. at *1. To quote from the federal court's Order, she is “an attorney who was hired as a defense expert regarding claims handling.” Id. at *2. She will testify to opinions in that lawsuit “based on her extensive experience in claims handling.” Id.
Although not stated by the United States District Court in its opinion in this case, Ms. Maus’s law firm also enjoys a statewide reputation for its expertise. (Many of its partners, including Ms. Maus, are also tireless volunteers in support of the activities of the Defense Research Institute.)
The Plaintiff's subject motion in limine was expressly addressed to three (3) matters as to which, the Plaintiff argued, Ms. Maus should not be permitted to testify at trial in this case. First, the motion in limine requested that she not be allowed to offer any “medical opinions.” The court granted this motion to the extent that Ms. Maus, an attorney (and one of the Plaintiff's own experts, also an attorney) was not a doctor and therefore could not testify to medical opinions. Id.
However, as to this first issue, the federal court made an effort to be very clear in its ruling. “However, [Ms. Maus] can interpret the medical records based on her expertise in claims handling practices and procedures.” Id. (Emphasis added).
The Plaintiff also conjectured that Ms. Maus may testify concerning the Plaintiff's doctor’s “state of mind” and argued that Ms. Maus should not be allowed to do so. The federal court did not accept this argument and denied the motion in this regard. The court held that Attorney Maus could testify at trial in this regard to the extent that her trial testimony (1) describes her own past experiences with the Plaintiff's doctor and (2) identifies any similarity between that doctor’s medical reports on the Plaintiff, and that doctor’s medical reports on other people. Id.
Finally, the Plaintiff argued that any defense witness who was “biased” against any “profession” should not be allowed to offer “biased” testimony, and in particular charged that Ms. Maus should not be allowed to testify to the following excerpt apparently taken from the transcript of her deposition (as quoted by the court in this opinion): “As we all know, chiropractors oftentimes will treat you until your insurance runs out. They will say you need treatment until your insurance runs out.” Id. According to the federal court, “Defendant did not directly respond to this argument.” Id.
Under the circumstances, the court granted this motion in limine in this regard, to the extent “that Maus cannot testify that ‘chiropractors oftentimes will treat you until your insurance runs out. They will say you need treatment until your insurance runs out.’” Id. at *10.
Over all, three interesting rulings on one uniquely presented motion in limine.