March v. United States
| Decision Date | 05 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:17-cv-2028 (VAB),3:17-cv-2028 (VAB) |
| Parties | ERIC MARCH, DINA MARCH, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Eric March has sued the United States of America (the "United States" or "Defendant"), alleging that Drs. Robert Franklin Berke Schlessel and Marko Lujic of the Veterans Administration Hospital in West Haven, Connecticut (the "VA") committed medical malpractice during a June 2015 laparoscopic ventral hernia repair procedure performed on him. Complaint, ECF No. 1 (Dec. 6, 2017). Mr. March's wife, Dina March (collectively with Mr. March, the "Plaintiffs"), also has brought a loss of consortium claim against the United States, Id. at 6-7.
Following a four-day bench trial, the Court now sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1).1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1).
As explained below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion in limine, ECF No. 48, ORDERS judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and AWARDS $3,270,278.22 in economic damages to Mr. March; $5,000,000 in noneconomic damages to Mr. March; and $1,200,000 in damages for loss of consortium to Mrs. March, for a total award of $9,470,278.22.
On December 6, 2017, Mr. and Mrs. March sued Defendant. Compl. Mr. March has alleged that "[w]hile under the care, treatment, monitoring, diagnosing and supervision" of the VA, id. ¶ 8, he "suffered severe, serious, painful and permanent injuries," id., which "were caused by the failure of [Defendant] . . . to exercise reasonable care," id. ¶ 9, and resulted in him being "permanently deprived of his ability to carry on and enjoy life's activities and his earning capacity . . . [being] permanently destroyed," id. ¶ 11. Mrs. March has alleged that "[a]s a result of the aforesaid occurrences to [Mr. March]," she was "deprived of the companionship and society of her husband all to her damage." Id. ¶ 12.
On March 28, 2018, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint. Answer, ECF No. 13 (Mar. 28, 2018).
On September 25, 2020, the parties filed a joint trial memorandum. Joint Final Pretrial Mem., ECF No. 47 (Sept. 25, 2020) ("JTM"). The joint trial memorandum included as exhibits the parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pls.' Proposed Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 47-3 (Sept. 25, 2020); Def.'s Proposed Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 47-4 (Sept. 25, 2020).
That same day, Defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude and/or limit the testimony of Mr. March's treating primary-care physicians, Dr. Remi Matthews and Dr. Matthew Waddington, and Plaintiffs' proffered expert witness, Darlene Carruthers. Def.'s Mot. in Lim. to Limit the Testimony of Pl.'s Treating Physicians Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) and Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 48 (Sept. 25, 2020) ("Mot. in Lim.").
On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs objected to the motion in limine. Pls.' Obj. to Def.'s Mot. in Lim., ECF No. 50 (Oct. 5, 2020) ("Obj. to Mot. in Lim.").
On October 10, 2020, Defendant replied to Plaintiffs' objection to the motion in limine. Reply in Supp. of Mot. in Lim., ECF No. 54 (Oct. 10, 2020) ("Reply to Mot. in Lim.").
From October 19, 2020 to October 22, 2020, the Court held a bench trial. See Min. Entries, ECF Nos. 57, 58, 59, 61. During the trial, nine witnesses testified: Dr. Maher Suede, a treating physician of Mr. March who was tendered as an expert treating witness, Tr. of Proceedings, ECF Nos. 65 66, 67, 68 (collectively, "Tr.") 3:14-15, 39:4-14; Dr. Lujic, who participated in Mr. March's laparoscopic ventral hernia repair procedure and was tendered as an expert treating witness, id. 74:10-15, 78:4-7; Dr. Schlessel, who participated in Mr. March's laparoscopic ventral hernia repair procedure and was tendered as an expert treating witnesses, id. 157:3-4, 159:18-25; Mr. March, id. at 263:14-15; Mrs. March, id. 343:13; Dr. Stephen Smith, a non-treating physician offered by Plaintiffs as an expert witness, id. 361:8-9, 395:3-11; Dr. Yuri Novitsky, a non-treating physician offered by Defendant as an expert witness, id. 478:8-9, 480:2-5; Darlene Carruthers, a life care planner offered by Plaintiffs as an expert witness, id. 605:16-17, 606:16-18; 609:11-22; and Dr. Gary Crakes, an economist offered by Plaintiffs as an expert witness, id. 671:5-6, 672:22-675:17. Twenty-five exhibits were admitted in full, with seven exhibits admitted for identification. Id. 2:22-3:5; 294:7-10; 300:15-18; 306:24-307:2; 307:17-20; 312:8-12; 313:11-15; 314:18-22; 354:6-9; 473:24-25; see also Revised Pl.'s Exhibit List, ECF No. 80 (Jan. 15, 2020) ("Exhibit List").
On December 4, 2020, the parties filed revised proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Pls.' Proposed Statement of Facts and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 69 (Dec. 4, 2020) ( ); Def.'s Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 70 (Dec. 4, 2020) ("Def.'s Post-Trial Findings") On December 18, 2020, the parties filed responses to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Post-Trial Filing (ECF No. 69), ECF No. 71 (Dec. 18, 2020) ("Def.'s Reply"); Pls.' Reply to Def.'s Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 72 (Dec. 18, 2020) ( ).
On January 7, 2021, the Court held oral argument by videoconference on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Min. Entry, ECF No. 74 (Jan. 7, 2021). At oral argument, counsel for Plaintiffs represented that she would file a supplemental memorandum providing caselaw in support of their request for noneconomic damages. Id.
That same day, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer to address discrepancies in the exhibit list and to provide an updated exhibit list. Order, ECF No. 75 (Jan. 7, 2021).
Also, on that same day, Plaintiffs filed the post-trial submission discussed at oral argument. Pls.' Suppl. Post-Trial Submission, ECF No. 76 (Jan. 7, 2021) ( ).
On January 14, 2021, Defendant filed a response to the Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum on noneconomic damages. Def.'s Resp. to Pls.' Suppl. Post-Trial Filing (ECF No. 76), ECF No. 77 (Jan. 14, 2021) ( ).
That same day, Defendant moved for leave to file a sur-reply to Plaintiffs' reply to Defendant's post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and filed a proposed sur-reply. Def.'s Mot. to File a Sur-Reply to ECF No. 72 and Proposed Sur-Reply, ECF No. 78 (Jan. 14, 2021) ("Def.'s Sur-Reply"). On January 15, 2021, the Court granted Defendant's motion and permitted Plaintiffs until January 22, 2021 to file a response to Defendant's sur-reply. Order, ECF No. 79 (Jan. 15, 2021).
Also on January 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an updated Exhibit List.2 Exhibit List.
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiffs responded to Defendant's sur-reply to their supplemental memorandum. Pls.' Suppl. Post-Trial Submission, ECF No. 81 (Jan. 22, 2021) ( ).
The Court first addresses Defendant's pending motion in limine, which seeks to preclude Drs. Matthews and Waddington from providing testimony as to anything beyond their scope of treatment or the reasonable reading of the medical records. Def.'s Reply to Mot. in Lim. at 1. While the motion itself does not explicitly request relief with respect to Ms. Carruthers' testimony, Defendant also argues on reply that the Court 3 Id. at 2. Defendant also argues that Ms. Carruthers, "a certified life care planner without a medical degree," may not be qualified to judge the accuracy and reliability of the out-of-court statements of physicians, and that she is only "parrot[ing]" rather than "critically evaluating" their findings. Id. at 4 (emphasis omitted).
As Drs. Matthews and Waddington did not testify, the Court addresses the motion only with respect to Ms. Carruthers's testimony.
Motions in limine provide district courts the opportunity to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984); Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996). "A district court's inherent authority to manage the course of its trials encompasses the right to rule on motions in limine." Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 551 F. Supp. 2d 173, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
A court should only exclude evidence on motions in limine if the evidence is "clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds." Levinson v. Westport Nat'l Bank, No. 09-cv-1955, 2013 WL 3280013, at *3 (D. Conn. June 27, 2013). Courts also retain discretion to reserve judgment on some or all motions in limine until trial so that the motions are placed in the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. L.E. Myers Co. Grp., 937 F. Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
In a bench trial, there is no "concern for juror confusion or potential prejudice," as the court is the trier of fact. Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 457, 457 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The court therefore has even greater discretion in bench trials than in jury trials to deny motions in limine and revisit admissibility determinations during or after trial. See Serby v. First Alert, Inc., No. 09-cv-4229 (WFK) (VMS), 2015 WL 4494827, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2015) (citing Tiffany, 576 F. Supp. 2d at 457 n.1); Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc. v. United States, No. 10 Civ. 6200 (RMB), 2014 WL 715525, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2014) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial