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.

Jaffrey v. Portercare Adventist Health System

United States District Court, D. Colorado

November 22, 2017

IRA S. JAFFREY, M.D., Plaintiff,
v.
PORTERCARE ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant.

          ORDER ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY BAUER

          Nina Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the court on Defendant PorterCare Adventist Health System's (“Defendant” or “PorterCare”) Motion to Exclude Testimony of Jeffrey Bauer (“Motion to Exclude” or “Motion”) [#70, filed August 10, 2017]. The Motion is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the Order of Reference dated December 9, 2015. [#11].[1]The court has reviewed the Motion to Exclude and the respective briefing, the entire docket, and the applicable case law. In addition, the court held an evidentiary hearing on November 15, 2017, including oral argument. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the court respectfully GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to Exclude.

         BACKGROUND

         The court has discussed in detail this action's background in previous rulings, see, e.g., [#46], and discusses it here only as it pertains to the pending Motion. Plaintiff Ira S. Jaffrey (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Jaffrey”) initiated this action on October 16, 2015, at the age of seventy-six (76). [#1]. Plaintiff, a Colorado licensed physician and board certified oncologist, began working as a part-time (“locum tenens”) oncologist at Defendant's facility, Mile High Oncology (“MHO”), in April 2014. [Id. at ¶¶ 4, 9]. During his locum tenens tenure, Dr. Jaffrey and PorterCare began discussing a contract position whereby he would work at MHO as an employee of the practice. The Parties vigorously dispute what happened next but, ultimately, Plaintiff ceased working at MHO on or about July 24, 2014. [Id. at ¶¶ 5-11]. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant discriminated against him because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (Claim I). [Id. at ¶ 1, 20]. Plaintiff also brought common-law claims for breach of contract (Claim II) and promissory estoppel (Claim III) against Defendant. [Id. at ¶¶ 21-24].

         On September 9, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. [#31]. After briefing and argument, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [#46]. Specifically, the court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment as to Claims I and III, and granted summary judgment in Defendant's favor as to Claim II only to the extent it alleged a breach of contract claim predicated on the unsigned employment agreement. [Id.]. Thus, Claims I and III remained in their entirety for trial, and Claim II remained to the extent it alleged a breach of contract claim predicated on the breach of an oral promise to extend Plaintiff's locum tenens employment with Defendant. [Id.]. The court then denied Defendant's Motion to Reconsider on August 10, 2017. [#69].

         In anticipation of the trial set to commence on February 26, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Exclude. Plaintiff filed his Response [#73], and Defendant filed its Reply [#74]. The court held an evidentiary hearing on November 15, 2017, at which the Parties were permitted to examine Jeffrey Bauer, PhD (“Dr. Bauer”) as well as Defendant's expert, George Rhodes, PhD (“Dr. Rhodes”), and present oral argument. [#80]. Being fully advised of the premises, the court now turns to considering whether some or all of the opinions offered by Dr. Bauer identified in the Motion should be excluded pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, and their progeny.

         LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits:
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 facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702. As noted by the Advisory Committee when the Rule was promulgated, “[a]n intelligent evaluation of facts is often difficult or impossible without the application of some scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.” Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee's note to 1937 rule.

         It is well established that trial courts are charged with the responsibility of acting as gatekeepers of expert testimony to ensure that expert testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but also reliable. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-152 (1999); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588-89 (1993). To fulfill that gatekeeper function, courts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (“Tenth Circuit”) conduct a two-part inquiry. First, this court considers whether the expert's proffered testimony has a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his or her discipline by conducting a preliminary inquiry into the expert's qualifications and the admissibility of the proffered evidence, i.e., whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid. Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 580 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1082 (D. Colo. 2006) (citing Butler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 400 F.3d 1227, 1232-33 (10th Cir. 2004)). Second, the court considers whether the proposed testimony is sufficiently relevant to the issues presented to the factfinder. See Id. ...


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.