Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02089-MSK-CBS

Document 224

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 01-cv-2089-MSK-CBS DEAN A. BRAMLET, M.D., Plaintiff, v. ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ JOINT MOTION UNDER FED. R. EVID. 702 RE: EXPERT LAURA VOIGHT ______________________________________________________________________________ The parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby request a determination of the admissibility of opinion testimony from Plaintiff's expert witness, Laura Voight. Counsel have discussed the issues raised herein in an attempt to resolve the issue, but have been unable to do so. Opinion: As part of her opinion, Plaintiff's credentialing expert seeks to testify that: On May 30, 2002, the JCAHO reviewed AVH [the Hospital] and their performance report is listed on the JCAHO website. AVH received an overall evaluation score of 81 points. 71% of all hospitals reviewed by JCAHO received a score between 90 to 100. Only 28% of reviewed hospitals received a score this low. The next lowest range of scores is between 70 and 79 and only 1% of hospitals reviewed received this score. AVH only missed that range by 2 points. AVH had 10 unacceptable areas and the JCAHO had to return to re-review the areas that needed improvement. Three of those areas were "Assessing Staff Competence," "Organization, Bylaws, Rules and regulations," and "Credentialing." It should be noted that on the second visit by the JCAHO on April 11, 2003, they again failed in the area of "Assessing Staff Competence" and the JCAHO had to again return to AVH on June 29, 2003, for this area. Expert Report of Laura A. Voight, dated September 22, 2004.

Case 1:01-cv-02089-MSK-CBS

Document 224

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 2 of 3

Defendant's Objection to Opinion: This portion of Ms. Voight's opinion is not based upon sufficient facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and does not apply the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Moreover, this portion of Ms. Voight's opinion is inadmissible because: (a) it is irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. 402); (b) it is hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 801 & 802); (c) its prejudicial impact substantially outweighs its probative value, if any (Fed. R. Evid. 403); (d) it would confuse the issues or mislead the jury (Fed. R. Evid. 403); (e) it is improper character evidence or evidence of prior or subsequent bad acts of the Hospital and/or its staff (Fed. R. Evid. 404 & 608); (f) its admission would deprive the Hospital of its right to cross-examination; and (g) it lacks foundation and calls for speculation. Time Requested for Hearing The parties anticipate that the admissibility of this opinion can be determined in a onehour hearing (one-half hour per side). The parties request that Ms. Voight be permitted to appear telephonically.

-2-

Case 1:01-cv-02089-MSK-CBS

Document 224

Filed 03/28/2006

Page 3 of 3

Dated this 28th day of March, 2006. Respectfully submitted, s/Sander N. Karp 201 14th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 e-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

s/Colleen M. Rea Colleen M. Rea, Esq. #024960 FORD & HARRISON LLP 1675 Broadway, Suite 2150 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 592-8860 Facsimile: (303) 592-8861 E-Mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT
Denver:11127.1

-3-