Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma resolves Plaintiff’s motions to exclude and strike the expert testimony of Dr. Molly Furin in a wrongful-death and civil-rights action arising from Charles Lamar Vanlandingham’s death during an EMS response. The court finds Dr. Furin’s supplemental report timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2), but concludes that most of her opinions lack a sufficiently explained basis under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. The court permits her to testify regarding the onset of intramuscular midazolam and its lack of a causative role in the cardiac arrest, excludes the remaining opinions, and denies the motion to strike as moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dr. Furin's supplemental expert report was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2).
- Whether Dr. Furin's opinions were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
- Whether Dr. Furin should be stricken as an expert witness.
Holdings
- Dr. Furin's May 20, 2025 supplemental report was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2) because the deadline for deposition designations, which are among the Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures, had not expired.
- The portions of Dr. Furin's opinions addressing the propriety of the EMS assessment and restraint, the transition of care, the necessity and appropriateness of sedation, and the quality of ACLS treatment were inadmissible because the reports did not sufficiently identify the bases or reasoning connecting her experience and the case facts to those conclusions.
- Dr. Furin may testify that, given the brief interval between intramuscular administration of midazolam and the cardiac arrest, the midazolam could not have taken effect before the arrest and therefore had no causative role in it.
- The motion to strike Dr. Furin as an expert witness was denied as moot because the court resolved the admissibility challenge by excluding the unsupported opinions and permitting the adequately supported midazolam-timing opinion.
Key quotations
“Absent some identification of the basis for the expert opinion, there is little or no way to test it against any of the guidelines or factors involved in a Daubert analysis or to otherwise determine its reliability.”
“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”
Factual background
Charles Lamar Vanlandingham experienced seizure activity and appeared to enter a postictal state before EMS arrived. Plaintiff alleged that EMS personnel, firefighters, and a police officer restrained him in a prone position for several minutes, failed to assess his condition adequately, and that an EMT administered intramuscular midazolam before Vanlandingham became limp and died despite CPR efforts. AMRAS's expert, Dr. Molly Furin, offered opinions concerning the EMS response, transfer of care, administration of midazolam, and cardiac-arrest treatment, but her reports generally did not explain the factual or methodological bases for those opinions.
Procedural history
In this civil-rights and related liability action arising from Charles Lamar Vanlandingham's death during an EMS response, AMRAS disclosed Dr. Furin as an expert witness. Plaintiff challenged the reliability and basis of her opinions under Rule 702 and Daubert. The court held that most of the opinions lacked an adequately explained basis, but that her opinion concerning the timing and causal effect of intramuscular midazolam was sufficiently supported. The motion to exclude was granted in part and denied in part, and the motion to strike was denied as moot.