Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Contreras v. Brown

United States District Court, D. Arizona

May 10, 2019

Arturo Contreras, individually; Jose N. Torres, individually, Plaintiffs,
v.
Chester David Brown; Legacy, Inc. and; Roe Business Entities I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

          ORDER

          James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Mary Rossi (Doc. 122). The Court now rules on the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On February 21, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion to Strike Defendants' Expert Mary Rossi. (Doc. 122). Defendants subsequently filed a Response (Doc. 124) on March 7, 2019, to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 126) on March 13, 2019.

         A. Facts

         The Court previously discussed the background facts of this case at length and need not repeat them here. (See Doc. 137 at 2). Relevant to the pending motion, Plaintiff Torres incurred significant medical bills from treatment in Arizona and Nevada following a rear-end collision with Defendant Brown. (Doc. 122 at 2). Defendants retained Rossi as an expert to testify in the area of medical billing. (Doc. 124 at 1). Rossi holds a degree in nursing, is a registered nurse in Wisconsin, and became a certified legal nurse consultant in 2004. (Doc. 124 at 4-5 (citing Doc. 124-6 at 2); see also Doc. 124-7 at 5). Rossi previously testified in multiple venues across the country about the reasonable value of medical services. (Doc. 124 at 5 (citing Doc. 124-7 at 6)). Rossi is not, nor has she ever been, licensed as a nurse in Arizona or Nevada. (Doc. 122 at 2; Doc. 124 at 5).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert

         Rule 702 provides that:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.