Wilson v. United States of America
Opinion
1 || BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7434 2 || ASH MARIE BLACKURN, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14712 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 4 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 Las Vegas, NV 89148-5652 5 || Tel: (702) 464-5000 Fax: (702) 463-4440 6 ash @mwinjury.com 7 Counsel for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 SONALOLITA WILSON CASENO.: — 2:18-CV-01241-JCM-NJK 99 ao ll Plaintiff Vs. SECOND AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER bo = 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; DOES I THROUGH X; AND ROE 14 || CORPORATIONS | THROUGH X,
IS Defendants.
A = COMES NOW Plaintiff, SONALOLITA WILSON (Plaintiff? or “Wilson”), by an £0 ig. || through her attorneys, BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ., and ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ
v3 19 of MAINOR WIRTH LLP; and Defendants UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LLC (“USA”), □□ S 0 and through their attorneys, R. THOMAS COLONNA, ESQ., for the UNITED STATE! ATTORNEY, and submit this [Proposed] Amended Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to LR 16-3. 9 I. 73 A. Summary of Action This is a personal injury action arising out of two motor vehicle collisions that occurred o1 5 September 1, 2016, between Plaintiff WILSON and Defendant USA and Plaintiff WILSON an 6 DEMHA-SANTIAGO and DEMHA. Plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue approaching Saylor Avenue, in the eastbound lanes. Plaintiff alleges Nakia McCloud, while in th |} course and scope of her employment with Defendant USA, in its Department of the Treasury, IRS
Page 1 of 18
2 Plaintiff alleges to have stopped in the eastbound travel lane for pedestrians who were 3 crossing Washington Avenue. Plaintiff avers that Nakia McCloud then rear-ended Plaintiff’s 4 vehicle. 5 Following the first collision, Nakia McCloud pulled her vehicle off to the right side of the 6 road. Plaintiff’s vehicle remained in the roadway. As Nakia McCloud was on the phone with 7 emergency services, while Plaintiff sat in her disabled car, her vehicle was struck again by a 8 different vehicle, driven by a dismissed party, DEMHA SANTIAGO. Plaintiff further contends she 9 was injured as a result of the September 1, 2016 motor vehicle collisions. 10 B. Relief Sought 11 Plaintiff seeks past medical specials in an amount in excess of $1,720,662.65. Plaintiff is 12 continuing her medical treatment. She is also seeking the present-day value of future medical 13 expenses in the amount of $386,938.00, loss of earning capacity in the amount of $805,038.85, and 14 past and future pain and suffering. 15 Plaintiff presented claims for future medical specials between $1,504,780.00 and 16 $2,238,876.00 during discovery. Thereafter, Defendant USA filed a Motion to Strike Untimely 17 Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions, which was granted by the Court. 18 C. Contentions of the Parties 19 1. Plaintiff’s Contentions: 20 Plaintiff contends that Defendants were the sole cause of the subject collisions by failing to 21 pay full attention to their surroundings, failing to reduce their speed, and striking the rear of 22 Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff further contends that the motor vehicle collisions caused her significant 23 injuries and the resulting damages that are the subject of this lawsuit. 24 2. Defendant USA’s Contentions: 25 Defendant USA contends that Plaintiff cannot establish her burden of proof as to causation 26 or damages (if any) as to the USA in the first accident. 27 28 2 Statement of Jurisdiction 3 As against the United States, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 §1346(b)(1), which provides that federal courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions 5 on claims against the United States… for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death 6 caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while 7 acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, 8 if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where 9 the act or omission occurred.” 10 III. 11 The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 12 1. Nakia McCloud was an employee of the Department of the Treasury, IRS, on 13 September 1, 2016 and she was acting within the course and scope of her employment 14 with the United States at the time of the motor vehicle accident. 15 2. On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff WILSON was operating a 2005 Toyota Corolla, 16 traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue, approaching Saylor Avenue, in Las Vegas, 17 Nevada. 18 3. On September 1, 2016, Nakia McCloud was operating a General Motors Terrain SLE, 19 traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue. 20 4. On September 1, 2016, a dismissed party, DEMHA-SANTIAGO, was operating a 2006 21 Acura 3.2 TL, traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue. 22 5. The vehicle operated by DEMHA-SANTIAGO was owned by another dismissed party, 23 DEMHA. 24 6. The front of Nakia McCloud’s vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff WILSON’s 25 vehicle. 26 7. The front of DEMHA-SANTIAGO’s vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff 27 WILSON’s vehicle. 28 2 McCloud’s vehicle collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 3 IV. 4 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to 5 the contrary: 6 None. 7 V. 8 The following are Plaintiff’s issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial: 9 1. Whether Nakia McCloud was negligent in her failure to operate her vehicle in a safe 10 and reasonable manner at the time of the incident. 11 2. Whether Defendant USA is liable for Plaintiff’s injuries in light of Nakia McCloud’s 12 breach of duty. 13 3. Whether Plaintiff could have reasonably been expected to avoid the second collision 14 pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF 113). (Plaintiff disputes USA’s ability to argue 15 this issue given its failure to assert a comparative negligence claim or to apportion 16 Plaintiff’s damages between the two accidents, as well as the dismissal of the 17 DEMHA Defendants. Thus, this may be a moot point at the time of trial.) 18 4. Whether the subject collisions proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff. 19 5. Whether the subject collisions proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 20 6. Whether the medical treatment claimed was/is reasonable, necessary, and related to 21 the alleged collisions. 22 7. Whether the Plaintiff will have future symptoms related to the alleged collisions. 23 8. Whether the Plaintiff will incur future treatments related to the alleged collisions. 24 9. Whether the Plaintiff suffered a loss of earning capacity related to the alleged 25 collisions. 26 10. Whether the Plaintiff has mitigated her damages that she relates to the alleged 27 collisions. 28 2 The following are Defendant USA’s issues of fact to be tried / determined at trial. 3 1. Whether Plaintiff’s conduct, specifically failing to put on hazard lights, failing to 4 move vehicle off the travel lane, failing to move off to the side of the road and wait 5 for emergency services, and exiting and re-entry in her own vehicle, contributed to 6 her alleged injuries in this case? 7 2. Whether the United States is liable to Plaintiff and if so, to what extent. 8 3. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff was injured as a result of both accidents on 9 September 1, 2016? 10 4. Whether and the extent to which Plaintiff was injured as a result of the first 11 accident involving the United States’ employee. 12 5. Whether Plaintiff or any other party’s negligence contributed to the accidents 13 and/or Plaintiff’s injuries. 14 6. Whether, and to what extent, the medical treatment Plaintiff received was 15 reasonable and necessary due to the accidents on September 1, 2016? 16 VI. 17 (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence and intended to be admitted: 18 See “Exhibit A” of this document.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 || BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7434 2 || ASH MARIE BLACKURN, ESQ. 3 Nevada Bar No. 14712 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 4 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 Las Vegas, NV 89148-5652 5 || Tel: (702) 464-5000 Fax: (702) 463-4440 6 ash @mwinjury.com 7 Counsel for Plaintiff 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 SONALOLITA WILSON CASENO.: — 2:18-CV-01241-JCM-NJK 99 ao ll Plaintiff Vs. SECOND AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER bo = 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; DOES I THROUGH X; AND ROE 14 || CORPORATIONS | THROUGH X,
IS Defendants.
A = COMES NOW Plaintiff, SONALOLITA WILSON (Plaintiff? or “Wilson”), by an £0 ig. || through her attorneys, BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ., and ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ
v3 19 of MAINOR WIRTH LLP; and Defendants UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LLC (“USA”), □□ S 0 and through their attorneys, R. THOMAS COLONNA, ESQ., for the UNITED STATE! ATTORNEY, and submit this [Proposed] Amended Joint Pretrial Order pursuant to LR 16-3. 9 I. 73 A. Summary of Action This is a personal injury action arising out of two motor vehicle collisions that occurred o1 5 September 1, 2016, between Plaintiff WILSON and Defendant USA and Plaintiff WILSON an 6 DEMHA-SANTIAGO and DEMHA. Plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue approaching Saylor Avenue, in the eastbound lanes. Plaintiff alleges Nakia McCloud, while in th |} course and scope of her employment with Defendant USA, in its Department of the Treasury, IRS
Page 1 of 18
2 Plaintiff alleges to have stopped in the eastbound travel lane for pedestrians who were 3 crossing Washington Avenue. Plaintiff avers that Nakia McCloud then rear-ended Plaintiff’s 4 vehicle. 5 Following the first collision, Nakia McCloud pulled her vehicle off to the right side of the 6 road. Plaintiff’s vehicle remained in the roadway. As Nakia McCloud was on the phone with 7 emergency services, while Plaintiff sat in her disabled car, her vehicle was struck again by a 8 different vehicle, driven by a dismissed party, DEMHA SANTIAGO. Plaintiff further contends she 9 was injured as a result of the September 1, 2016 motor vehicle collisions. 10 B. Relief Sought 11 Plaintiff seeks past medical specials in an amount in excess of $1,720,662.65. Plaintiff is 12 continuing her medical treatment. She is also seeking the present-day value of future medical 13 expenses in the amount of $386,938.00, loss of earning capacity in the amount of $805,038.85, and 14 past and future pain and suffering. 15 Plaintiff presented claims for future medical specials between $1,504,780.00 and 16 $2,238,876.00 during discovery. Thereafter, Defendant USA filed a Motion to Strike Untimely 17 Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions, which was granted by the Court. 18 C. Contentions of the Parties 19 1. Plaintiff’s Contentions: 20 Plaintiff contends that Defendants were the sole cause of the subject collisions by failing to 21 pay full attention to their surroundings, failing to reduce their speed, and striking the rear of 22 Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff further contends that the motor vehicle collisions caused her significant 23 injuries and the resulting damages that are the subject of this lawsuit. 24 2. Defendant USA’s Contentions: 25 Defendant USA contends that Plaintiff cannot establish her burden of proof as to causation 26 or damages (if any) as to the USA in the first accident. 27 28 2 Statement of Jurisdiction 3 As against the United States, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 §1346(b)(1), which provides that federal courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions 5 on claims against the United States… for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death 6 caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while 7 acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, 8 if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where 9 the act or omission occurred.” 10 III. 11 The following facts are admitted by the parties and require no proof: 12 1. Nakia McCloud was an employee of the Department of the Treasury, IRS, on 13 September 1, 2016 and she was acting within the course and scope of her employment 14 with the United States at the time of the motor vehicle accident. 15 2. On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff WILSON was operating a 2005 Toyota Corolla, 16 traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue, approaching Saylor Avenue, in Las Vegas, 17 Nevada. 18 3. On September 1, 2016, Nakia McCloud was operating a General Motors Terrain SLE, 19 traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue. 20 4. On September 1, 2016, a dismissed party, DEMHA-SANTIAGO, was operating a 2006 21 Acura 3.2 TL, traveling eastbound on Washington Avenue. 22 5. The vehicle operated by DEMHA-SANTIAGO was owned by another dismissed party, 23 DEMHA. 24 6. The front of Nakia McCloud’s vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff WILSON’s 25 vehicle. 26 7. The front of DEMHA-SANTIAGO’s vehicle collided with the rear of Plaintiff 27 WILSON’s vehicle. 28 2 McCloud’s vehicle collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 3 IV. 4 The following facts, though not admitted, will not be contested at trial by evidence to 5 the contrary: 6 None. 7 V. 8 The following are Plaintiff’s issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial: 9 1. Whether Nakia McCloud was negligent in her failure to operate her vehicle in a safe 10 and reasonable manner at the time of the incident. 11 2. Whether Defendant USA is liable for Plaintiff’s injuries in light of Nakia McCloud’s 12 breach of duty. 13 3. Whether Plaintiff could have reasonably been expected to avoid the second collision 14 pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF 113). (Plaintiff disputes USA’s ability to argue 15 this issue given its failure to assert a comparative negligence claim or to apportion 16 Plaintiff’s damages between the two accidents, as well as the dismissal of the 17 DEMHA Defendants. Thus, this may be a moot point at the time of trial.) 18 4. Whether the subject collisions proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff. 19 5. Whether the subject collisions proximately caused damages to Plaintiff. 20 6. Whether the medical treatment claimed was/is reasonable, necessary, and related to 21 the alleged collisions. 22 7. Whether the Plaintiff will have future symptoms related to the alleged collisions. 23 8. Whether the Plaintiff will incur future treatments related to the alleged collisions. 24 9. Whether the Plaintiff suffered a loss of earning capacity related to the alleged 25 collisions. 26 10. Whether the Plaintiff has mitigated her damages that she relates to the alleged 27 collisions. 28 2 The following are Defendant USA’s issues of fact to be tried / determined at trial. 3 1. Whether Plaintiff’s conduct, specifically failing to put on hazard lights, failing to 4 move vehicle off the travel lane, failing to move off to the side of the road and wait 5 for emergency services, and exiting and re-entry in her own vehicle, contributed to 6 her alleged injuries in this case? 7 2. Whether the United States is liable to Plaintiff and if so, to what extent. 8 3. Whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff was injured as a result of both accidents on 9 September 1, 2016? 10 4. Whether and the extent to which Plaintiff was injured as a result of the first 11 accident involving the United States’ employee. 12 5. Whether Plaintiff or any other party’s negligence contributed to the accidents 13 and/or Plaintiff’s injuries. 14 6. Whether, and to what extent, the medical treatment Plaintiff received was 15 reasonable and necessary due to the accidents on September 1, 2016? 16 VI. 17 (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence and intended to be admitted: 18 See “Exhibit A” of this document. 19 (b) The parties agree the following exhibits will be available for use at the time of trial and 20 the parties agree to their foundation and authenticity, but are not currently intended to be admitted: 21 See “Exhibit A-1” of this document. 22 (c) The following exhibits are offered by Plaintiff: 23 See “Exhibit B” of this document. 24 Plaintiff reserves the right to use any documents disclosed by Defendants, including those 25 which experts have reviewed and formed opinions, such as reports; pleadings; correspondence; 26 notes and medical records and billing. 27 Plaintiff may use any and all writings, published works, journals, treatises, medical texts, 28 2 and other data compilations, and other medical reference materials which Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s 3 expert(s) use in support of Plaintiff’s allegations. By disclosing documents, Plaintiff does not waive 4 the right to challenge and exclude documents, or portions thereof, on any basis. 5 Plaintiff may offer documents needed for rebuttal or impeachment purposes, including, but 6 not limited to, discovery obtained during the course of litigation as permitted; pleadings; and other 7 documentation in accordance with admissible evidence. There may be additional exhibits which 8 Plaintiff may wish to offer at the time of trial, not listed above. When and if that determination is 9 made, notice will be given immediately and supplied to the Court and to Defendants. 10 (d) The following exhibits are offered by Defendant: 11 See “Exhibit C” of this document. 12 Defendant reserves the right to use any document including but not limited to discovery 13 responses and/or deposition testimony by Plaintiff or co-defendants for impeachment and/or 14 substantively as party admissions, as may be relevant at trial. Defendant reserves the right to use 15 demonstrative evidence. Defendant also reserves the right to use any exhibit listed or introduced by 16 Plaintiff or co-defendants, or as previously produced by the parties. 17 (e) Electronic evidence: 18 1. The parties may offer Power Point images/drawings/diagrams/animations/story 19 boards depicting the facts and circumstance of the accident, information relevant to 20 communications between the parties, and/or deposition testimony. 21 2. The parties do intend to present electronic evidence for purposes of bench 22 deliberations. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 2 1. Plaintiff will offer the following deposition testimony at trial: 3 Deponent Offered Testimony Liceth Demha 10:24-11:20, 21:1-19, 22:18-23:4, 27:22-28:8, 28:24-31:16, 35:20- 4 49:24, 52:16-53:15, 57:14-62:4 Nakia McCloud 12:21-13:14, 27:4-28:16, 32:8-34:11, 34:25-35:23, 39:8-47:20, 48:22- 5 54:22, 57:15-62:22, 65:3-72:6, 73:14-75:25, 76:24-78:15, 83:17-85:6, 6 92:13-93:19, 96:9-96:14 Sonalolita Wilson 13:2-13:22, 15:3-15:10, 15:15-16:15, 17:4-17:12, 19:8-19:14, 19:20- 7 22:23, 23:9-26:10, 27:7-29:18, 34:14-35:9, 35:25-38:10, 38:24-40:25, 42:5-54:1, 54:9-60:2, 65:5-66:18,67:17-69:17, 71:6-75:23, 80:15- 8 82:16, 86:8-88:3, 88:17-89:15, 89:25-90:13, 93:8-96:10, 97:10-101:20, 9 102:14-103:1, 105:18-106:18, 107:11-109:10, 109:25-111:12, 111:19- 112:6, 112:19-119:4, 123:12-125:5, 125:20-135:15, 136:5-138:13 10 Baduk Ghuman 18:14 – 20:6, 21:9 – 22:22, 27:16 – 28:25, 30:8 – 33:11, 35:1-41:9, 44:9– 49:5, 49:6-50:8, 50:14-55:3, 55:5-56:1, 56:25-58:7, 59:2-60:23, 11 60:24-64:15, 64:16-67:9, 68:6-71:9, 75:11-76:25, 82:7-84:5, 84:11- 88:18, 89:3-91:16, 94:19-96:12, 100:6-103:25, 108:7-110:22, 111:16- 12 112:25, 113:21-115:25 13 Duff Kaster 15:3-15:22, 21:12-23:11, 24:9-25:1, 25:16-26:13, 26:24-27:12, 28:4- 29:24, 32:21-33:23, 34:6-34:16, 35:1-35:18 14 Robert Hinton 10:4 – 11:15, 12:17 – 13:1, 14:7-15:4, 15:9-16:16, 16:20-17:12, 21:10- 23:19, 24:12-25:12, 26:1-30:14, 31:1-32:2, 33:9-40:23 15 Mark Glyman 11:25-12:21, 14:10-15:1, 19:1-22:4, 22:18-23:16, 24:4-31:16, 33:3- 16 33:20, 34:13-37:13,37:20-41:16, 41:22-43:9, 44:1-44:23 Thomas Dunn 7:12-9:12, 19:13-20:16, 23:5-24:2, 25:4-25:22, 26:18-31:19, 33:20- 17 35:10, 35:17-39:10, 39:21-44:20, 48:25-50:11, 52:20-55:5, 56:7-57:7, 57:20-60:2, 60:23-61:6, 61:21-62:20, 63:19-66:3, 66:14-67:19 18 Rick Chavez 10:16-11:6, 20:6-20:18, 22:21-24:22, 25:3-25:14, 29:16-31:21, 41:3- 42:19,45:9-46:1, 47:23-50:5, 51:1-53:9, 59:13-60:21, 63:14-63:25, 19 64:24-70:10, 71:10-72:24, 73:9-74:14, 75:25-76:17, 77:17-78:12, 79:1- 20 81:14, 82:8-83:2,84:13-86:9, 87:6-87:24, 94:19-96:9, 102:21-103:19, 106:7-107:10,108:17-109:18, 110:1-112:2, 114:9-118:17 21 David John Oliveri 11:24-14:2, 14:14-15:15, 16:25-17:16, 20:1-20:16, 24:4-24:25, 26:2- 26:24, 28:3-28:10, 30:3-30:17, 31:14-32:4, 32:17-36:1, 36:7-37:14, 22 37:22-42:1, 42:15-43:15, 44:2-45:7, 49:7-50:7, 51:8-51:16, 52:19-53:5, 53:18-54:14, 55:19-57:12, 57:21-58:20, 61:3-62:3, 64:14-64:22, 65:11- 23 66:21, 71:8-73:5, 77:6-77:13, 77:19-78:5 24 Jaswinder Grover 11:23-13:13, 17:6-17:22, 20:5-21:8, 21:21-22:13, 23:1-24:11, 25:2- 27:18, 29:18-31:3, 32:3-33:1, 35:18-38:21, 39:2-41:20, 43:2-43:6, 25 44:16-48:25, 49:1-49:25, 50:8-52:5, 53:3-55:14, 59:5-61:4, 62:10-64:7, 66:2-68:17, 70:4-74:6, 74:23-76:9, 77:7-78:15, 80:3-81:25, 84:11-85:3, 26 89:4-93:12, 94:6-94:13, 94:14-96:18, 96:21-97:14, 98:3-102:14, 104:7- 27 105:16, 106:6-111:21 Sonalolita Wilson pt. 157:1-164:11, 170:8-180:1, 182:14-183:8, 184:2-185:5, 185:6-186:17, 28 209:24-217:17, 218:22-220:11, 222:1-223:20, 225:3-227:8, 233:14- 2 236:15, 237:14-239:14, 241:7-245:4, 248:3-249:4
3 Plaintiff anticipates reading depositions into the records and reserve the right to use all 4 depositions which have been conducted in this action due to witness unavailability, if allowed under 5 FRCP 32(a)(4)(B), to refresh recollection and/or to impeach a witness, as well as any other 6 permitted use under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence. 7 2. Defendant will offer the following deposition testimony at trial: 8 Deponent Offered Testimony 9 Baduk Ghuman 10:24-11:20, 21:1-19, 22:18-23:4, 27:22-28:8, 28:24-31:16, 35:20- 10 49:24, 52:16-53:15, 57:14-62:4 Jaswinder Grover 12:7-9 and 15-20; 13 – 16: 1-3; 17:6 -22; 20:23 – 25; 26:22-25; 27:1- 11 18; 33:2-6; 37:2-12; 41:9-20; 42:9-16; 54:15-25; 55:114; 62:22-25; 63:1-12; 84:9-25; 85:1-3 12
13 Defendant USA reserves the right to use all depositions which have been conducted in this 14 action to refresh recollection and/or to impeach a witness, and otherwise use at trial in accordance 15 with the applicable rules, i.e., Fed. R. Civ. P. 32; Fed. R. Evid. 801(d). 16 (e) Objections to Depositions: 17 (1) Plaintiff objects to Defendant USA’s depositions as follows: 18 Plaintiff objects to the extent that Defendant USA seeks to introduce or use any deposition 19 transcript at trial beyond that allowed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Federal 20 Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff objects to the deposition transcripts of Drs. Ghuman and Grover as 21 hearsay and/or improper impeachment. 22 (3) Defendant USA objects to plaintiff’s depositions as follows: 23 a. Plaintiff WILSON’s depositions: All testimony. 24 b. David John Oliveri’s deposition: All testimony; including, without limitation, to any 25 testimony related to David John Oliveri’s life care plan and future medical treatments as struck by 26 the Court. See ECF No. 90. 27 c. To the extent Plaintiff intends to call Defendant USA’s expert witnesses and present their 28 2 testimony of Defendant USA’s expert witnesses; including, without limitation, to Rick Chavez’ 3 testimony. 4 Defendant, USA reserves the right to object to any particular portions of the other deposition 5 transcripts, including, without limitation, those provided by Plaintiff. Furthermore, USA objects to 6 Plaintiff’s depositions as noted in subsection (4) below. USA further objects to the extent that either 7 Plaintiff seeks to introduce or use any deposition transcript at trial beyond that allowed under 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Federal Rules of Evidence. 9 (4) Defendant USA objects to plaintiff’s depositions as follows: 10 Deponent Offered Testimony Liceth Demha 10:24-11:20, (calls for speculation; incomplete hypothetical; expert opinion) 11 21:1-19, (relevance; prejudicial) 22:18-23:4, (relevance) 12 27:22-28:8, (relevance) 13 28:24-31:16, (relevance; assumption) 35:20-49:24, (relevance; expert opinion) 14 57:14-62:4 (relevance; expert opinion) Nakia McCloud 39:8-47:20, (expert opinion) 15 83:17-85:6, (incomplete hypothetical; calls for speculation; expert opinion) 16 92:13-93:19, (calls for legal conclusion; expert opinion) Sonalolita 13:2-13:22, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion) 17 Wilson 19:8-19:14, (relevance) 23:9-26:10, (expert opinion) 18 38:24-40:25, (expert opinion) 42:5-54:1, (relevance, expert opinion) 19 54:9-60:2, (relevance, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 20 71:6-75:23, (expert opinion, best evidence rule) 80:15-82:16, (relevance, prejudicial) 21 86:8-88:3, (relevance, expert opinion, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 88:17-89:15, (relevance, expert opinion, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 22 89:25-90:13, (relevance, expert opinion, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 93:8-96:10, (relevance, expert opinion, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 23 102:14-103:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 24 105:18-106:18, (relevance, prejudicial) 107:11-109:10, (relevance, prejudicial) 25 109:25-111:12, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 112:19-119:4, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 26 125:20-135:15, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 136:5-138:13 (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 27 Babuk Ghuman 18:14 – 20:6, (relevance, prejudicial) 28 27:16 – 28:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 2 35:1-41:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 44:9– 49:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 3 50:14-55:3, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 4 55:5-56:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 56:25-58:7, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 5 59:2-60:23, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 60:24-64:15, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 6 64:16-67:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 68:6-71:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 7 75:11-76:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 8 82:7-84:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 84:11-88:18, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 9 89:3-91:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 94:19-96:12, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 10 100:6-103:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 11 108:7-110:22, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 111:16-112:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 12 113:21-115:25 (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) Duff Kaster 15:3-15:22, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 13 21:12-23:11, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 24:9-25:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 14 25:16-26:13, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 15 26:24-27:12, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 28:4-29:24, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 16 32:21-33:23, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 34:6-34:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 17 35:1-35:18(relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) Robert Hinton 21:10-23:19, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 18 24:12-25:12, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 19 26:1-30:14, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 31:1-32:2, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 20 33:9-40:23(relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) Mark Glyman 11:25-12:21, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 21 14:10-15:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 19:1-22:4, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 22 22:18-23:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 23 24:4-31:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 33:3-33:20, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 24 34:13-37:13, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 37:20-41:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 25 41:22-43:9, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 26 44:1-44:23(relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) Thomas Dunn 25:4-25:22, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 27 26:18-31:19, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 33:20-35:10, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 28 39:21-44:20, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 2 48:25-50:11, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 52:20-55:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 3 56:7-57:7, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 4 57:20-60:2, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 60:23-61:6, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 5 61:21-62:20, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 63:19-66:3, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 6 66:14-67:19(relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) Rick Chavez 10:16-11:6, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 7 20:6-20:18, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 8 22:21-24:22, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 25:3-25:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 9 29:16-31:21, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 41:3-42:19, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 10 45:9-46:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 11 47:23-50:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 51:1-53:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 12 59:13-60:21, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 63:14-63:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 13 64:24-70:10, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 71:10-72:24, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 14 73:9-74:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 15 75:25-76:17, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 77:17-78:12, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 16 79:1-81:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 82:8-83:2, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 17 84:13-86:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 87:6-87:24, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 18 94:19-96:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 19 102:21-103:19, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 106:7-107:10, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 20 108:17-109:18, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 110:1-112:2, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 21 114:9-118:17(relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) David John 11:24-14:2, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 22 Oliveri 14:14-15:15, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 23 16:25-17:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 20:1-20:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 24 24:4-24:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 26:2-26:24, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 25 28:3-28:10, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 30:3-30:17, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 26 31:14-32:4, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 27 32:17-36:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 36:7-37:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 28 42:15-43:15, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 2 44:2-45:7, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 49:7-50:7, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 3 51:8-51:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 4 52:19-53:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 53:18-54:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 5 55:19-57:12, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 57:21-58:20, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 6 61:3-62:3, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 64:14-64:22, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 7 65:11-66:21, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 8 71:8-73:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 77:6-77:13, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 9 77:19-78:5(relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) Jaswinder 11:23-13:13, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 10 Grover 17:6-17:22, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 11 20:5-21:8, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 21:21-22:13, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 12 23:1-24:11, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 25:2-27:18, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 13 29:18-31:3, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 32:3-33:1, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 14 35:18-38:21, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 15 39:2-41:20, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 43:2-43:6, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 16 44:16-48:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 49:1-49:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 17 50:8-52:5, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 53:3-55:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 18 59:5-61:4, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 19 62:10-64:7, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 66:2-68:17, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 20 70:4-74:6, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 74:23-76:9, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 21 77:7-78:15, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 80:3-81:25, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 22 84:11-85:3, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 23 89:4-93:12, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 94:6-94:13, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 24 94:14-96:18, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 96:21-97:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 25 8:3-102:14, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 104:7-105:16, (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 26 106:6-111:21(relevance, prejudicial, best evidence rule) 27 Sonalolita 170:8-180:1, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) Wilson pt. II 184:2-185:5, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 28 187:18-191:4, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 2 191:15-192:8, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 196:23-198:7, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 3 205:1-207:17, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 4 209:24-217:17, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 218:22-220:11, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 5 222:1-223:20, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 225:3-227:8, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 6 233:14-236:15, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 237:14-239:14, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 7 241:7-245:4, (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 8 248:3-249:4(relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule)
9 (5) Plaintiff objects to Defendant USA’s depositions as follows: 10 Deponent Offered Testimony Jaswinder 13 – 16: 1-3 (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 11 Grover 33:2-6 (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 12 41:9-20 (relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence rule) 42:9-16 (speculation, relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence 13 rule) 84:9-25 (speculation, relevance, prejudicial, expert opinion, best evidence 14 rule) Babuk Ghuman 5:12-15 (relevance) 15 8:15-22 (relevance) 16 10:9-13 (relevance, prejudicial) 11:8-12:3 (relevance, prejudicial, best evidence) 17 12:12-16 (speculation, relevance, prejudicial, best evidence) 17:19-23 (relevance, prejudicial) 18 22:23-23:10 (relevance, prejudicial, speculation, improper hypothetical, best evidence) 19 25:23-25 (best evidence) 20 33:3-11 (relevance, prejudicial) 74:21-75:1 (best evidence) 21 82:1-3 (speculation, best evidence)
22 Plaintiff reserves the right to object to any particular portions of the deposition transcripts, 23 including, without limitation, those provided by Defendant USA. Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to 24 the extent that either Defendant USA seeks to introduce or use any deposition transcript at trial 25 beyond that allowed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Federal Rules of Evidence. 26
28 2 The following witnesses may be called by the parties at trial: 3 (a) Plaintiff intends to call the following witnesses at trial: 4 1. Plaintiff, SONALOLITA WILSON c/o /o Bradley S. Mainor, Esq. 5 Joseph J. Wirth, Esq. Ash Marie Blackburn, Esq. 6 Joseph W. Guindy, Esq. 7 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 8 Las Vegas, NV 89148 (702) 464-5000 9 2. Nakia McCloud 10 c/o United States Attorney’s Office 501 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 1100, 11 (702) 388-6336 12 3. Witness, Liceth Demha-Santiago 13 c/o the Law Offices of Denise McCurry 7251 West Lake Mead Blvd. #349 14 Las Vegas, NV 89128 (702) 408-3805 15
16 4. Mark Glyman, M.D., DDS, FACS FRCP 30(B)(6) Witness and/or Person Most Knowledgeable able 17 Mark Glyman, M.D., DDS, FACS / Abby Dental 1775 Village Center Cir, #150 18 Las Vegas, NV, 89113 19 (702) 507-5555
20 5. Thomas Dunn, M.D. FRCP 30(B)(6) Witness and/or Person Most Knowledgeable able 21 Desert Orthopedic Center 2800 E. Dessert Inn Rd., Ste 100 22 Las Vegas, NV 89121 23 (702) 731-1616
24 6. David Oliveri, M.D. 851 S. Rampart Dr., # 115, 25 Las Vegas, NV 89145 (702) 778-9300 26
27 7. Ira Spector, M.S., C.R.C. 3440 E. Russell Rd., #208 28 (702) 214-4294 2 8. Travis Snyder 3 IMGEN 4 4045 S. Buffalo Dr. #A101-363 Las Vegas, NV 89147 5 9. Paul Thomas, Ph.D., MRC, CRC 6 Vocational Economics, Inc. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 517 7 Las Vegas, NV 89169 8 (702) 718-1600
9 10. Samuel Terry Exhibit A 10 P.O. Box 530111 Henderson, NV 89053 11
12 11. Michael Freeman Med Dr. Ph.D., Forensic Research & Analysis 13 4256 NW 10th Ave. # 306 Portland, OR 97209 14 12. Frank Perez, Ph.D., 15 4435 N. First St., #205 16 Livermore, CA
17 13. Robert Lee Hinton 98 S. Martin Luther King, Apt. 234 18 Las Vegas, NV 89106 (810) 618-1344 19
20 14. Plaintiff reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Defendant’s witness 21 list and named during the course of discovery; 22 15. Plaintiff reserves the right to call rebuttal and/or impeachment witnesses at trial; 23 16. Plaintiff reserves the right to call any of Defendant’s experts as witnesses. 24 Defendant USA reserves all rights of objections to testimonies at trial including but not 25 limited to any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or 26 are not relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow 27 Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. Defendant, USA, also objects to testimony by 28 2 excluded by the Court, including Dr. Oliveri. 3 (a) Defendant USA’s Witnesses 4 1. Nakia McCloud 5 c/o United States Attorney’s Office 501 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 1100, 6 (702) 388-6336 7 2. Plaintiff, SONALOLITA WILSON 8 c/o /o Bradley S. Mainor, Esq. Joseph J. Wirth, Esq. 9 Ash Marie Blackburn, Esq. Joseph W. Guindy, Esq. 10 MAINOR WIRTH, LLP 11 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 Las Vegas, NV 89148 12 (702) 464-5000
13 3. Defendant, Liceth Demha-Santiago c/o the Law Offices of Denise McCurry 14 7251 West Lake Mead Blvd. #349 15 Las Vegas, NV 89128 (702) 408-3805 16 4. Defendant, Juan Demha, 17 c/o the Law Offices of Denise McCurry 18 7251 West Lake Mead Blvd. #349, Las Vegas, NV 89128, 19 (702) 408-3805
20 6. Rick Chavez, MD Pain and Addiction Integrated Network, Inc., 21 4733 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 625 22 Torrance, CA, 90506 (323) 833-8269 23 7. James G. Lowe, MD, FACS 24 Lowe-Greenwood-Zerbo Spinal Associates 1999 New Road, Suite B 25 Linwood, NJ, 08221 26 (609) 601-6363
27 8. Mark Remas, MA, CRC, ABVE The Remas Group 28 San Diego, CA, 92111 2 (858) 560-6733
3 9. Warren M. Torchinsky, DDS 4 223 East Main Street Maple Shade, NJ, 08052 5 (856) 667-7900
6 10. Eugenia Larmore, PhD, MBA 550 West Plumb Lane, Suite B459 7 Reno, NV 89509 8 (775) 232-7203
9 11. Defendant, USA, reserves the right to call any witnesses identified in Plaintiff’s 10 witness list and named during the course of discovery. 11 12. Defendant reserves the right to call rebuttal and/or impeachment witnesses at trial; 12 13. Defendant reserves the right to call any of Plaintiff’s experts as witnesses. 13 Plaintiff reserves all rights of objections to testimonies at trial including but not limited to 14 any expert opinions that were not timely disclosed in discovery, lack foundation, and/or are not 15 relevant and reliable. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 37(c)(1), Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 16 Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. Plaintiff also objects to the testimony of Eugenia 17 Larmore to the extent that her opinions violate the collateral source rule under Proctor v. 18 Castelletti, 911 P.2d 853, 854 n.1 (Nev. 1996). Plaintiff also objects to testimony by any witness 19 whose testimony was already excluded by the Court. 20 VIII. 21 Trial is currently set to begin on July 10, 2023. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 IX. 2 The parties estimate that trial last a total of 5 days. 3 || APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 4 || DATED this 7™ day of June, 2023. DATED this 7" day of June, 2023. 5 || MAINOR WIRTH, LLP UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 6 7 /s/ Ash Marie Blackburn /s/ R. Thomas Colona BRADLEY S. MAINOR, ESQ. R. THOMAS COLONNA 8 || Nevada Bar No. 7434 501 Las Vegas Blvd, South., Ste. 1100 ASH MARIE BLACKBURN, ESQ. Las Vegas, NV 89101 9 Nevada Bar No. 14712 Attorney for Defendant United States of 6018 S. Fort Apache Road, Ste. 150 America 10 |] Las Vegas, NV 89148-5652
iu Counsel for Plaintiff
Z, + 2 X. a ACTION BY THE COURT 13 Fro 8 14 This case is set for bench trial on July 10, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Calendar call
15 will be held on July 5, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. This pretrial order has been OS nA 2 a 16 approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by their signatures or the signatures of thei
A = 17 || attorneys hereon, and the order is hereby entered and will govern the trial of this case. This orde
< 1g || may not be amended except by court order and based upon the parties’ agreement or to preven
19 || manifest injustice.
49 DATED: June 9 , 2023. 21 2 _ Ee fated 2. Ato ila UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24 25 26 27 28
Page 18 of 18
1 EXHIBIT A
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SONALOLITA WILSON CASE NO.: 2:18-CV-01241-JCM-NJK 4
Plaintiff 5 vs. Stipulated Exhibits Intended to be Admitted
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; DOES I
THROUGH X; AND ROE 7 CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH X,
8 Defendants.
9 Exhibit Description 10 1. Manpower Employment File 11 2. Plaintiff’s Employment Records From Staffmark 12 3. TrueBlue Records/ Peopleready Regarding Plaintiff’s Earnings 13 4. Traffic Accident Report #LVM160901003306 14 5. Traffic Accident Report #LVM160901002946 15 6. Custodian of Records for 911 recordings and breakdown 16 7. 911 Recordings Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Las Vegas Fire 8. 17 and Rescue for Date of Service September 1, 2016
18 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for University 9. Medical Center for Date of Service September 1, 2016 19 Films From University Medical Center 9-A 20 Medical Records and Billing for McCourt PLLC a/k/a EMP of Clark UMC 10. 21 for Date of Service September 1, 2016
22 11. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Desert Radiology Solutions Dates of Service September 1, 2016 Through December 18, 2020 23 Films from Desert Radiology Solutions 11-A 24 1 12. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Nevada Spine Clinic Dates of Service September 8, 2016 Through March 16, 2023 2 Films from Nevada Spine Clinic 3 12-A Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Better Back 13. 4 Physical Therapy Dates of Service September 9, 2016 Through December 2, 2016 5 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Mark Glyman, 14. 6 M.D. Dates of Service September 13, 2016 Through November 13, 2019
7 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for American 15. Radiology Dates of Service September 15, 2016 Through April 26, 2022 8 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Desert 9 16. Orthopaedics Center Dates of Service September 30, 2016 Through March 15, 2018 10 Films for Desert Orthopaedics Center 11 16-A Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Pueblo Medical 17. 12 Imaging Date of Service September 30, 2016
13 Films from Pueblo Medical Imaging 17-A 14 18. Medical Records and Billing for Absolute Dental Date of Service October 13, 2016
15 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Desert 19. 16 Anesthesiologist, Inc. Date of Service January 11, 2017
17 20. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Specialty Surgery Center Date of Service January 11, 2017 18 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Abby Dental/. 21. 19 Dates of Service February 27, 2017 Through March 15, 2017
20 22. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Smoke Ranch Surgery Center Dates of Service September 3, 2017 Through July 28, 2022 21 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Don Nobis 23. 22 Progressive Physical Therapy Dates of Service December 26, 2017 Through March 23, 2023 23 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Silver State 24. 24 Neurology Dates of Service January 2, 2018 Through February 26, 2018 1 25. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Louis F. Mortillaro Dates of Service November 14, 2018 Through December 5, 2018 2 Medical Records and Billing for Lien RX Dates of Service January 4, 2019 3 26. Through January 23, 2019
4 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for 986 Specialty 27. Pharmacy Dates of Service January 4, 2019 Through June 29, 2021 5 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Smoke Ranch 6 28. Specialists Dates of Service January 10, 2019 Through May 2, 2019
7 Medical Records and Billing for CarePro Home Health, Dates of Service 29. January 11, 2019 Through February 11, 2019 8 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Lyons Home 9 30. Care Dates of Service January 12, 2019 Through February 1, 2019
10 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for PayLater 31. Pharmacy Date of Service January 23, 2019 11 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for American 12 32. Medical Response Date of Service May 2, 2019 Through May 20, 2019
13 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Las Vegas 33. Pharmacy Dates of Service March 8, 2019 Through July 1, 2020 14
Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Mountain View 15 34. Hospital Date of Service May 2, 2019
16 Films for Mountain View Hospital 34-A 17 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Fremont 35. Emergency Services Date of Service May 2, 2019 18 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Mountains Edge 19 36. Hospital Dates of Service May 3, 2019 Through May 6, 2019
20 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Valley Hospital 37. Medical Center Dates of Service May 8, 2019 Through May 12, 2019 21 Films from Valley Hospital Medical Center 22 37-A Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Shadow 23 38. Emergency Physicians Date of Service May 8, 2019 through May 14, 2019
24 1 39. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Monitoring Associates Date of Service May 15, 2019 2 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Summerlin 3 40. Hospital Medical Center Dates of Service May 15, 2019 Through May 20, 2019 4 Films from Summerlin Hospital Medical Center 5 40-A Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Kindred Hospital 41. 6 Las Vegas- Sahara Campus Dates of Service May 21, 2019 Through August 2, 2019 7 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Next Step 42. 8 Medical Date of Service July 3, 2019
9 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Dental Center of 43. Nevada Date of Service September 16, 2019 10 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Zynex Medical, 11 44. Inc. Date of Service November 21, 2019
12 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Shiode 45. Psychotherapy, Inc. Dates of Service December 12, 2019 Through March 9, 13 2020
14 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Radar Medical 46. Group Dates of Service January 16, 2020 Through August 7, 2020 15 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Open Sided MRI 16 47. Dates of Service February 6, 2020 Through February 7, 2020
17 Films from Open Sided MRI 47-A 18 48. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Grand Desert Psychiatric Services Dates of Service March 16, 2020 Through May 14, 2020 19 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Las Vegas 49. 20 Health/ Dr. Hamid Services Dates of Service July 8, 2020 Through August 4, 2020 21 Medical Records and Billing for Silver State Adult Day Care Dates of Service 50. 22 October 1, 2020 Through November 4, 2021
23 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Prosthetic Center 51. of Excellence Dates of Service May 12, 2021 Through May 20, 2021 24 1 52. Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Pure Medical Equipment, Inc. Dates of Service February 8, 2022 2 Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Quest Diagnostic, 3 53. Inc. Dates of Service January 28, 2020 Through July 27, 2020
4 2018 W-4 Completed Form for Sonalolita Wilson 54. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 EXHIBIT A-1
Plaintiff 5 vs. Stipulated Exhibits Available For Use At The Time of Trial But Are Not Currently
6 Admitted UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ;
7 LICETH DEMHA-SANTIAGO; JUAN DEMHA; DOES I THROUGH X; AND ROE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH X, 8
Defendants. 9
10 Exhibit Description 11 1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 12 2. Defendant United States’ Answer to Plainitff’s First Amended Complaint 13 3. Google Overhead Photo Depicting the Subject Intersection (1) 14 4. Google Overhead Photo Depicting the Subject Intersection (2) 5. 15 Color Photo Depicting the Scene of the Subject Incident (1) 6. 16 Color Photo Depicting the Scene of the Subject Incident (2) 7. 17 Color Photo Depicting the Scene of the Subject Incident (3) 8. Color Photo Depicting the Scene of the Subject Incident (4) 18 9. Color Photo Depicting the Scene of the Subject Incident (5) 19 10. Color Photo Depicting the Scene of the Subject Incident (6) 20 11. Black and White Photo Depicting Plaintiff’s Property Damage (1) 21 12. Black and White Photo Depicting Plaintiff’s Property Damage (2) 13. 22 Prior Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Mountain 23 View Hospital for Date of Service November 9, 2014 24 1 14. Prior Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for University 2 Medical Center for Date of Service January 21, 2014 15. 3 Prior Medical Records and Billing with Custodian of Records for Valley 4 Hospital for Date of Service February 22, 2016 16. 5 Life Expectancy Table 17. Transcripts of Deposition of Babuk Guman, M.D., With Exhibits 6
Transcript of Deposition of Rick Chavez, M.D., With Exhibits 7 18. Transcript of deposition of Liceth Demha 8 19. Transcript of deposition of Mark L. Glyman, M.D., D.D.S., F.A.C.S., with 9 exhibits 10 Transcript of deposition of Robert L. Hinton 20. 11 Transcript of deposition of Duff Kaster, D.D.S., with exhibits
12 Transcript of deposition of Nakia McCloud, with exhibits 21. 13 Transcript of deposition of Sonalolita G. Wilson, with exhibits. Vol 1 22. Transcript of deposition of Sonalolita G. Wilson, with exhibits Vol 2 14 23. Transcript of deposition of David J. Oliveri M.D 15 24. Transcript of deposition of Thomas Dunn, M.D 16 Transcript of deposition of Jaswinder Grover, M.D 17 25. Transcript of deposition of Frank A. Perez, Ph.D
18 David Oliveri, M.D. Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 26. 19 David Oliveri, M.D. Expert Report dated December 2, 2019 27. 20 David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated August 4, 2020 28. David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated August 4, 2020 21 29. David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated December 11, 2020 22 30. David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated April 2, 2021 23 31. David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated July 26, 20200 24 32. David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated March 2, 2023 1 33. David Oliveri, M.D. Supplemental Expert Report dated March 30, 2023 2 34. Ira Spector M.S. C.R.C, M.D. Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess 3 Schedule 35. 4 Ira Spector M.S. C.R.C, Expert Report dated December 12, 2019 36. 5 Ira Spector M.S. C.R.C, Rebuttal Expert Report dated July 23, 2020 37. Samuel R. Terry Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 6 38. Samuel R. Terry Expert Report dated June 3, 2020 7 39. Michael D. Freeman, MedDr, PhD, MPH, DLM, FAAFS Curriculum Vitae, 8 Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 9 40. Michael D. Freeman, MedDr, PhD, MPH, DLM, FAAFS Expert Report dated 10 July 8, 2020 41. 11 Michael D. Freeman, MedDr, PhD, MPH, DLM, FAAFS Rebuttal Expert 12 Report dated August 5, 2020 42. Frank Perez, Ph.D Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List 13
Frank Perez, PhD, FAAFS Expert Report dated July 8, 2020 14 43. Frank Perez, PhD, FAAFS Expert Report dated July 8, 2020 15 44. Terrence M. Clauretie, Ph.D. Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess 16 Schedule 17 45. Terrence M. Clauretie, Ph.D. Expert Report dated February 4, 2020
18 Thomas Dunn, MD Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 46. 19 Thomas Dunn, MD Rebuttal Expert Report dated August 3, 2020 47. 20 Travis Snyder, D.O. Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 48. Travis Snyder, D.O. Rebuttal Expert Report dated August 7, 2020 21 49. Dr. James Lowe’s Expert Report (dated April 27, 2020) 22 50. Dr. James Lowe’s Rebuttal Expert Report (dated July 27, 2020) 23 51. Dr. James Lowe’s Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 24 52. Dr. Rick Chavez’s Expert Report (dated July 7, 2020) 1 53. Dr. Rick Chavez’s Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 2 54. Dr. Warren Torchinsky’s Expert Report (dated November 12, 2019) 55. 3 Dr. Warren Torchinsky’s Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess 4 Schedule
5 Mark Remas’s Expert Report (dated April 28, 2020) 56. Mark Remas’s Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and Fess Schedule 6 57. Eugenia A. Larmore, PhD, MBA’s Rebuttal Report Dated March 31, 2023 7 58. Eugenia A. Larmore, PhD, MBA’s Curriculum Vitae, Testimony List, and 8 Fess Schedule 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 EXHIBIT B
Plaintiff 5 Plaintiff’s Exhibits vs.
6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; LICETH DEMHA-SANTIAGO; JUAN 7 DEMHA; DOES I THROUGH X; AND ROE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH X, 8
10 Exhibit Description Defendant USA’s Objections 11 1. IRS Incident Report Privileged; prejudicial; foundation; best evidence 12 2. Color Photo Depicting Plaintiff’s Property (No Bates Number Damage Provided) Relevance; 13 foundation; authenticity 3. Farmers Insurance Exchange Property Relevance; prejudicial; 14 Damage Estimate of Plaintiff’s Vehicle foundation; best evidence; authenticity 15 4. Black Box Data for Defendant’s Vehicle - Prejudicial; foundation; GMC Terrain 2014 best evidence; authenticity 16 5. Vehicle information regarding vehicle Prejudicial; foundation; driven by Nikia McCloud’s best evidence; 17 authenticity 6. Color Photo of Plaintiff’s Injury Taken by (No Bates Numbers 18 Plaintiff on September 13, 2016 (1) Provided) Relevance; prejudicial; foundation; best evidence; 19 authenticity 7. Color Photo of Plaintiff’s Injury Taken by (No Bates Numbers 20 Plaintiff on September 13, 2016 (2) Provided) Relevance; prejudicial; foundation; 21 best evidence; authenticity 22 8. Video of Plaintiff Depicting Full Body Relevance; prejudicial; Seizure Taken by Robert Hinton foundation; best evidence; authenticity; 23 hearsay 9. Video of Plaintiff Depicting Right Leg Relevance; prejudicial; 24 Spasm Taken by Robert Hinton foundation; best 1 evidence; authenticity; hearsay 2 10. Video of Plaintiff Depicting Leg Spasms Relevance; prejudicial; When Walking Taken by Robert Hinton foundation; best evidence; authenticity; 3 hearsay
4 11. Video of Plaintiff Depicting Full Body Relevance; prejudicial; Seizure foundation; best 5 evidence; authenticity; hearsay 6 12. Video of Plaintiff Depicting Right Leg Relevance; prejudicial; Spasm foundation; best evidence; authenticity; 7 hearsay 13. Video of Plaintiff Depicting Right Leg Relevance; prejudicial; 8 Spasm foundation; best evidence; authenticity; 9 hearsay 14. Plaintiff Medical Specials Chart Relevance; prejudicial; foundation; best 10 evidence; authenticity 15. Travis Snyder, D.O. Presentation (Plaintiff 11 intends to use portions of Dr. Snyder’s presentation an demonstrative exhibit) 12 16. Defendant United State’s Responses and Relevance; prejudicial; 13 Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of Hearsay; best evidence; foundation Interrogatories 14 17. Defendant United State’s Responses and Relevance; prejudicial; 15 Objections to Plaintiff’s First Set of H foe ua nr ds aa ty i; o b ne st evidence; Requests for Production 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 EXHIBIT C
3 SONALOLITA WILSON CASE NO.: 2:18-CV-01241-JCM-NJK 4
Plaintiff 5 Defendant United States of America’s vs. Trial Exhibits 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ; LICETH DEMHA-SANTIAGO; JUAN 7 DEMHA; DOES I THROUGH X; AND ROE CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH X, 8
10 Exhibit Description Plaintiff’s Objections 11 577. Plaintiff’s First Supplemental Response to Relevance; prejudicial; Defendant United States’ First Set of Hearsay; best evidence; 12 Interrogatories (dated November 8, 2019 foundation
13 578. Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Response Relevance; prejudicial; to Defendant United States’ First Set of Hearsay; best evidence; 14 Interrogatories (dated January 28, 2021 foundation
15 579. Plaintiff’s Third Supplemental Response Relevance; prejudicial; to Defendant United States’ First Set of Hearsay; best evidence; 16 foundation Interrogatories (dated February 5, 2021) 580. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant United Relevance; prejudicial; 17 States’ Second Set of Interrogatories (dated Hearsay; best evidence; foundation November 22, 2019) 18 581. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant United Relevance; prejudicial; States’ Third Set of Interrogatories (dated Hearsay; best evidence; 19 March 20, 2020) foundation 582. Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Response Relevance; prejudicial; 20 to Defendant Demha’s First Set of Hearsay; best evidence; Interrogatories (February 5, 2021) foundation 21 583. Demha Defendants’ Answers to Plaintiff’s Relevance; prejudicial; Interrogatories (dated February 28, 2020) Hearsay; best evidence; 22 foundation
23 24
Wilson v. United States of America (Wilson v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.