United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRCMNIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant
United States of America's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 39) and Motion in Limine (Doc. # 41).
Plaintiff Thomas Hinson responded in opposition to the
Motions. (Doc. ## 40, 42). For the reasons that follow, the
Motions are denied.
initiated this Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) case against
the United States on June 21, 2018. (Doc. # 1). This case
involves a car accident between Hinson and a U.S. Postal
Service vehicle in 2016, in which Hinson was allegedly
injured. (Id.). The United States filed its Answer
on August 27, 2018. (Doc. # 11).
case proceeded through discovery. On February 21, 2019, the
United States moved to strike Hinson's expert
disclosures, including those relating to three of
Hinson's treating physicians: Dr. Heldreth, Dr. Bansal,
and Dr. Weber. (Doc. # 30). After the motion to strike was
filed, Hinson served his amended expert disclosures. (Doc. #
39-4). But the United States still maintained these amended
disclosures were insufficient. (Doc. # 34).
April 18, 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted the United
States' motion to strike. (Doc. # 36). The Magistrate
Judge gave Hinson an opportunity to amend his disclosures for
the various treating physicians. The Order specified that
Hinson “should clarify whether each non-retained
treating expert will testify only on opinions formed during
their treatment of  Hinson. If these physicians will
testify based on facts learned outside their treatment
relationship with  Hinson, then  Hinson must provide the
information required under Rule 26(a)(2)(b).”
(Id. at 8). The Order stated that
“Hinson's amended disclosures provide adequate
detail as to Dr. Bansal's and Dr. Weber's opinions
and supporting facts” but also directed Hinson to
“clarify that Dr. Bansal and Dr. Weber will testify
only on opinions formed during their treatment of 
Hinson.” (Id. at 7). Regarding Dr. Heldreth,
the Order explained that Hinson's amended disclosures
“failed to provide an adequate summary of the specific
facts and opinions to which Dr. Heldreth . . . [is] expected
to testify.” (Id.).
turned over his second amended disclosures on April 25, 2019.
(Doc. # 39-5). Hinson disclosed that he intends for three
treating physicians - Dr. Heldreth, Dr. Bansal, and Dr. Weber
- to offer opinions about the causation of his injuries.
Specifically, regarding Dr. Heldreth, the second amended
disclosures state in relevant part: “It is anticipated
that, based only upon his examination and treatment of
[Hinson], Dr. Heldreth will opine that the care and treatment
provided at Total Vitality Medical Group for those injuries
was reasonable, necessary and related to the motor vehicle
collision.” (Id. at 3).
Dr. Bansal, the second amended disclosures state in relevant
part: “It is anticipated that, based only upon his
examination and treatment of [Hinson], Dr. Bansal will opine
that: [Hinson] suffered personal injuries to his right
shoulder and right knee as a direct result of the subject
incident; [Hinson] suffered aggravation of preexisting
medical arthritic condition of his right knee as a direct
result of the subject incident; . . . [and] the care and
treatment [Hinson] received by Dr. Bansal for those injuries
and aggravations were reasonable, necessary and related to
the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle collision.”
(Id. at 5-6). Finally, regarding Dr. Weber, the
second amended disclosures state in relevant part: “It
is anticipated that, based only upon his examination and
treatment of [Hinson], Dr. Weber will opine that: [Hinson]
suffered personal injuries to his cervical spine and lumbar
spine as a direct result of the subject incident, including
but not limited to cervical myelopathy and is at risk for a
devastating neurologic injury; . . . [and] the care and
treatment [Hinson] received by Dr. Weber for those injuries
were reasonable, necessary and related to the spinal injuries
sustained in the motor vehicle collision.”
(Id. at 8-9).
the United States moves for partial summary judgment on the
issue of whether Hinson's injuries were caused by the car
accident. (Doc. # 39). In support, the United States contends
that Hinson's second amended disclosures are insufficient
to allow his treating physicians to opine on causation and
that Hinson has no other evidence in support of causation.
(Id.). The United States has also filed a Motion in
Limine, seeking to prevent Dr. Heldreth, Dr. Bansal, and Dr.
Weber “from providing expert testimony that
[Hinson's] injuries are causally related to the motor
vehicle accident . . . and to prevent any of [Hinson's]
treating physician experts from offering any testimony which
is based upon information provided to them in anticipation of
litigation or trial.” (Doc. # 41 at 1).
has responded to both Motions (Doc. ## 40, 42), and the
Motions are ripe for review.
Motion in Limine
motion in limine presents a pretrial issue of admissibility
of evidence that is likely to arise at trial, and as such,
the order, like any other interlocutory order, remains
subject to reconsideration by the court throughout the
trial.” In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig.,
Nos. 6:06- md-1769-Orl-22DAB, 6:07-cv-15733-Orl-22DAB, 2009
WL 260989, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2009). “The real
purpose of a motion in limine is to give the trial judge
notice of the movant's position so as to avoid the
introduction of damaging evidence which may irretrievably
effect the fairness of the trial.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A court has the
power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is
clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
motion in limine is not the proper vehicle to resolve
substantive issues, to test issues of law, or to address or
narrow the issues to be tried.” LSQ Funding Grp. v.
EDS Field Servs., 879 F.Supp.2d 1320, 1337 (M.D. Fla.
2012)(citing Royal Indem. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.
Co., No. 07-80172- CIV, 2008 WL 2323900, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. June 5, 2008)). “Denial of a motion in limine does
not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the
motion will be admitted at trial.” In re
Seroquel, 2009 WL 260989, at *1 (internal quotation
marks omitted). “Instead, denial of the motion means
the court cannot determine whether the evidence in question
should be excluded outside the trial ...