Skylar Wamsley v. Bedford County

Summary

This memorandum addresses four motions in limine in a USERRA action brought by Skylar Wamsley against Bedford County. The court denies the motions concerning hospital photographs and lay testimony about the plaintiff’s injuries, grants the motion to exclude late-disclosed medical records, and declines to rule at that time on evidence concerning two prior termination decisions. The document identifies the case as set for trial on May 11, 2026.

Holdings

1. The hospital photographs were relevant because they had at least some tendency to make it more probable that Wamsley suffered an injury during National Guard training, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or the danger of misleading the jury.
2. The photographs of the medical records and, to the extent available to the parties, the medical records themselves were excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).
3. Wamsley's mother and fiancée may testify about their personal observations of his injuries, symptoms, hospital condition, and recovery, and may offer general causal opinions within ordinary lay knowledge, but they may not provide scientific, technical, or specialized medical testimony.
4. Evidence concerning Lynch and Reed was excluded because plaintiff did not oppose exclusion. The court reserved ruling on evidence concerning Hart and Draine because factual disputes remained concerning whether their conduct was sufficiently comparable to Wamsley's conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether photographs depicting Wamsley in the hospital were relevant and whether their probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or the danger of misleading the jury.
2. Whether photographs of medical records and the medical records themselves should be excluded under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 because they were disclosed late and the nondisclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless.
3. Whether Wamsley's mother and fiancée could provide lay testimony concerning their observations of his injuries, symptoms, recovery, and certain causal connections.
4. Whether evidence concerning Bedford County's prior termination decisions was relevant to discriminatory intent under USERRA.

Disposition

other