Plaintiff sued defendant related to an employment contract. Defendant hired a Health Care Administration Expert Witness to provide testimony. The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert witness testimony. The court granted the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (Bamber v. Prime Healthcare Kansas City – Physician’s Services, LLC – United States District Court – Western District of Missouri – August 14th, 2019) involves a breach of contract related to the termination of employment of the plaintiff by the defendant. The defendant hired Dr. David Siegel (Health Care Administration Expert Witness) to provide testimony. The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. David Siegel.
Discussion: The court notes that Dr. Siegel is a senior executive physician/attorney with more that twenty-five years of experience in healthcare, which includes health system management and consultant roles. The court also noted that Dr. Siegel was in clinical practice and worked as an emergency department physician, and has served as a clinical professor of medicine, an examiner for the American Board of Emergency Medicine, and a Chief Medical Officer.
The plaintiff argues that Dr. Siegel’s testimony should be excluded because his opinions are contrary to the facts, are outside the parameters of Rule 702, are subjective and speculative, and constitute inappropriate parol evidence. The defendant argues that Dr. Siegel’s specialized knowledge will assist the jury to understand the complexities behind hospital administration and operations. In addition, the defendant argues that Dr. Siegel’s opinion will address the extent to which the defendant was deprived of an expected benefit, and whether the plaintiff’s conduct is even with good faith and fair dealing.
Also, the defendant states that Dr. Siegel used reliable methodologies in forming his opinions by analyzing key documents in the case, including the parties’ contract, correspondence, and discovery.
The court states that while the defendant maintains that Dr. Siegel’s opinions will shed light on the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected, only the defendant will know the true answer to the question as to what was reasonably expected. Thus, Dr. Siegel’s opinions are not relevant to one factor for determining whether a breach is material.
The court also opines that Dr. Siegel’s testimony is not relevant to the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing.
The court also finds Dr. Siegel’s testimony is not relevant or useful to the jury, and therefore, his testimony is not admissible.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. David Siegel is granted.