United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division
January 28, 2015
LORRAINE COOK, Plaintiff,
THE HUGHSTON CLINIC, P.C., et al., Defendants.
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Now pending before the court is the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Supplemental Expert Report (doc. # 49) filed on January 22, 2015.
In his supplemental expert witness report, Dr. Tonks indicated that he had reviewed diagnostic images including radiographs and CT scans. (Doc. # 41, Ex. 1, p.1). He further stated that
[t]he exhibits which will be used to support my opinions are a few of the radiological images. These images are post-operative films. This letter will be offered as a summary of my opinions, and a copy of the board summary will be forwarded to you in time for you to get it to the defendants’ attorney in time for him to consider it prior to taking my testimony.
(Id. at p. 2)
In his amended supplemental report which was provided to the defendants just prior to oral argument on the defendants’ third motion to strike, Dr. Tonks specifically identified the radiological images he reviewed.
The exhibits which will be used to support my opinions are a few of the radiological images. The CAT scans taken post operatively on December 1 and December 2, 2011; Indicate the screws are positions to injure the nerves. This letter will be offered as a summary of my opinions.
(Doc. # 49, Ex. A, p.2).
In his supplemental expert report, Dr. Tonks initially refers to “a few of the radiological images.” He then uses the same language in his amended supplemental report but then he identifies CAT scans taken post operatively on December 1 and December 2, 2011. It is unclear whether the December 1 and 2 images are the same images he refers to as “a few of the radiological images.”
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before February 8, 2015, the plaintiff shall file a response which informs the court whether the CAT scans identified in Dr. Tonks’ amended supplemental report are the same images referred to as “a few of the radiological images” in his supplemental expert report.
The court reserves ruling on the defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 49) until the plaintiff’s response is received.