Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Daniel P. Struck, Bar #012377 Rachel Love Halvorson, Bar #019881 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone No.: (602) 263-1700 Facsimile No.: (602) 263-1784 E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants, Corrections Corporation of America and Stolc IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Cheryl Allred Plaintiff, v. Corrections Corporation of America, Inc.; Bruno Stolc Defendants. Defendants Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") and Warden Stolc respond in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9, which seeks to exclude evidence of denial of unemployment and social security benefits. Plaintiff will testify at trial that as a result of the alleged rape, she has suffered extreme emotional distress which has negatively impacted every aspect of her life, including her ability to resume a normal work schedule. In deposition, Plaintiff testified that because of the emotional distress suffered as a result of the alleged rape, since she was released from custody in July, 2002, she has been forced to work at home.1 She also testified that prior to her arrest in July, 2001, and following incarceration, Plaintiff worked as a bookkeeper at her boyfriend's construction company 35 to 40 hours a week. During the Spring of 2002, Plaintiff was diagnosed by rape crisis counselor Queta VanWyngarden as suffering from PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder because of the alleged rape. Accordingly, in August, 2002, Plaintiff applied for Social Security Disability benefits, claiming she could not work because of fibromyalgia and PTSD NO. CIV 03-2343 PHX-DGC DEFENDANT S' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MO TION IN LIM INE NO. 9 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BENEFITS

Case1 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 162 Filed 01/11/2006 Page 1 of 3 See Deposition of Cheryl Allred dated 5/4/04, at 120-22, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

resulting from the alleged rape.2 The Social Security Administration determined Plaintiff was not disabled because of PTSD or any physical health conditions. Evidence regarding the denial of disability benefits by the Social Security Administration and any unemployment agencies is relevant to Plaintiff's damages claim. Under F ED.R.E VID . 401 and 402, the Social Security's denial of benefits has a tendency to make the existence of facts to support Plaintiff's damages claim less probable than it would be without the evidence. Pursuant to F ED.R.E VID . 403, benefits denial evidence is admissible because the probative value is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury where such evidence addresses the non-complex issue of whether Plaintiff was so emotionally damaged by the alleged rape that she cannot participate in life's normal activities, including the ability to work. The Social Security records pertaining to the denial of benefits are furthermore admissible under the hearsay exception of F ED.R.E VID . 803(8) as a public record and report and contain party admissions pursuant to FED.R.E VID . 801(d)(2) as well as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis under hearsay exception F ED.R.E VID . 803(4). Finally, evidence of benefits application denials are admissible pursuant to F ED. R.E VID . 106 which provides that: "[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at the time of any other party or any other writing or recorded statements which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it." Here, Plaintiff listed medical/mental health evaluation records from Dr. Birgit Bodine and Dr. Francisco M arquez as trial exhibits to support Plaintiff's diagnosis of PTSD and additional mental health conditions suffered as a result of the alleged rape.3 These providers evaluated Plaintiff in conjunction with her Social Security disability benefits application. Rule 106 as stated above prohibits

See letters from Social Security Administration regarding denial of benefits, Bates Nos. CCA-ALL01853-1857 attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
3

2

See Joint Proposed Pretrial Order, exhibits 77 and 78 of Plaintiff's List of Exhibits. Document 162 Filed 01/11/2006 2 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Plaintiff from cherry picking only those particular records which support her damages theory without providing Defendants with the opportunity to tell the jury the whole story. Here, that no matter what diagnosis these providers may have made with respect to Plaintiff's mental condition, they did not believe the nature and extent of her claimed condition caused her to become disabled. It is inequitable to permit Plaintiff to introduce selected evidence from Plaintiff's disability application records to support her damages claim but prohibit Defendants from presenting evidence that completes the story with respect to the benefits applications and which challenge the very nature and extent of Plaintiff's claimed injuries here. Based upon the foregoing, Defendants request this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence at trial of denial of unemployment and Social Security disability benefits. DATED this 11 th day of January, 2006. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C.

By s/ Rachel Halvorson Daniel P. Struck Rachel Love Halvorson 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Defendants, Corrections Corporation of America and Stolc Foregoing filed ELECTRONICALLY this 11 th day of January, 2006 with the United States District Court, District of Arizona. COPY of the foregoing mailed even date to:

23 24 25 26

Leon Schydlower, Esq L AW O FFICE O F L EON S CHYDLOWER 210 North Campbell Street El Paso, Texas 79901 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Cheryl Allred s/ Carol S. Madden

and

Brett Duke, Esq. L AW O FFICES OF B RETT D UKE 4157 Rio Bravo El Paso, Texas 79902

Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC

Document 162

Filed 01/11/2006 3

Page 3 of 3