Estate of Robert W. Petersen, by and through Robert T. Petersen as Personal Representative; Estate of Mary Ann Simons, by and through Dean Simons as Personal Representative; and Estate of Charlotte Elaine Guilford, by and through Charles Guilford as Personal Representative v. Koelsch Senior Communities, LLC and Billings Partners, LLC d/b/a Canyon Creek

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana rules on defendants’ motion to exclude or limit the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert Janet McKee in a negligence action involving alleged failures in nutrition, hydration, staffing, and infection control at a memory care and assisted living facility. The court denies exclusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, finding McKee qualified and her opinions sufficiently reliable, but limits her from offering medical causation opinions. The court also finds plaintiffs violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 by disclosing new opinions and materials late, and addresses the resulting limitations on their use at trial.

Holdings

1. McKee was qualified under Rule 702 to testify about Canyon Creek's dietary standard-of-care duties because her education, licensure, board certification, professional experience, teaching, and research were relevant to the opinions she offered.
2. McKee's opinions satisfied Rule 702's reliability requirement, albeit marginally, because they were based on sufficient facts or data and reflected a reliable application of her experience, training, and education to the record evidence.
3. McKee may not be elicited to offer medical causation opinions, but she may testify about how inadequate nutrition can promote or increase the risk of weight loss, falls, pressure ulcers, and urinary tract infections.
4. McKee may opine on how the statutes and regulations she identified inform the standard of care and establish a duty in this case, provided she does not offer an ultimate-issue opinion.
5. Plaintiffs violated Rule 26 by failing to adequately disclose or timely supplement McKee's initial expert report with new opinions, materials, regulatory and legal framing, systemic criticisms, and criticisms of specifically identified personnel.
6. The late disclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless, but the court declined to strike the opinions and instead imposed the lesser sanction of allowing a supplemental report and reopening McKee's deposition at plaintiffs' expense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Janet McKee was qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to testify about the dietary standard of care applicable to assisted-living facilities.
2. Whether McKee's opinions were based on sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and a reliable application of those principles and methods.
3. Whether McKee should be prohibited from offering medical causation opinions while being permitted to testify about risks associated with inadequate nutrition.
4. Whether McKee could use identified statutes and regulations to inform the applicable standard of care and establish a duty.
5. Whether opinions and materials first disclosed in McKee's Violations Report and deposition violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and required exclusion or another sanction under Rule 37(c)(1).

Disposition

other