Hines (ID 102944) v. Corizon Health, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: August 2, 2021
• Docket: 5:20-cv-03018
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

HOWARD HINES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 20-3018-SAC

CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Expert Witness (Doc. 17), Motion for Discovery (Doc. 18), and Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 19). Plaintiff asks the Court to allow him an expert witness for assistance in interpreting and explaining the Martinez report. (Doc. 17, p. 3.) He also generally requests discovery and various documents showing his date of diagnosis, the treatments he was offered, and the treatments prescribed. (Docs. 18 and 19.) Plaintiff’s motions are premature. Plaintiff seeks an expert witness to “lend [his or her] expertise on matters pertaining to whether[] or not the plaintiff (patient) received Standard Medical Treatments, at the hands of quali[f]ied Health Care Providers[ a]nd whether the doctor prescribing the medication acted under contract as a [licensed] doctor entering a contract to provide medical treatments.” (Doc. 17, p. 1.) This action currently is in the preliminary screening stage, all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and construes them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Moreover, although the Court may consider the Martinez report during screening, it may not use the report as a basis to refute facts Plaintiff has pled in his complaint. See

Winkel v. Hammond, 704 Fed. Appx. 735, 737 (2017) (citing Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286, 290 (10th Cir. 1993)). There is no need for an expert witness at the current stage of these proceedings. Plaintiff’s other two motions seek discovery, but discovery in this case has not yet commenced. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Thus, those motions are denied without prejudice as premature. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Expert Witness (Doc. 17), Motion for Discovery (Doc. 18), and Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. 19), are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 2nd day of August, 2021, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge