Woods v. MHM Health Professionals, LLC

N.D. Mississippi

Woods v. MHM Health Professionals, LLC

DecidedSeptember 24, 2021

Docket3:19-cv-00234

StatusUnknown

This text of Woods v. MHM Health Professionals, LLC (Woods v. MHM Health Professionals, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woods v. MHM Health Professionals, LLC, (N.D. Miss. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

DR. AMY R. WOODS PLAINTIFF

VS. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-00234-NBB-RP

MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC, D/B/A CENTURION PROFESSIONALS; MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION; JESSE WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY; AND JOHN DOES 1-9 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This cause comes before the court upon the defendants’ motions to exclude or limit certain expert opinions. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude or limit the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert Dr. Edmund Miller, whom the plaintiff has designated to offer opinions about the necessity of medical care for certain inmates at Marshall County Correctional Facility. The defendants move to exclude Dr. Miller’s testimony as to the proper authority in a prison system over medical decision-making and to exclude legal conclusions. The plaintiff concedes that Dr. Miller should not be allowed to offer legal opinions at trial and assures the court that such opinions will not be elicited; but the plaintiff asserts that Dr. Miller is a qualified expert as to the medical decision-making process and can offer admissible opinions on this topic at trial. Having reviewed the motions, responses, and submissions, the court is satisfied that Dr. Miller has used “reliable methods to reach his opinions; and those opinions [are] relevant to the facts of the case.” Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993)). The court will, of course, not allow Dr. Miller to testify regarding legal conclusions, but testimony on the subjects the plaintiff proposes will be allowed, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding admissibility and other considerations. Accordingly, the court finds that the defendants’ motions to exclude or limit certain expert opinions are DENIED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 24th day of September, 2021.

/s/ Neal Biggers NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

DR. AMY R. WOODS PLAINTIFF

VS. CAUSE NO. 3:19-CV-00234-NBB-RP

MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC, D/B/A CENTURION PROFESSIONALS; MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION; JESSE WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY; AND JOHN DOES 1-9 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This cause comes before the court upon the defendants’ motions to exclude or limit certain expert opinions. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude or limit the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert Dr. Edmund Miller, whom the plaintiff has designated to offer opinions about the necessity of medical care for certain inmates at Marshall County Correctional Facility. The defendants move to exclude Dr. Miller’s testimony as to the proper authority in a prison system over medical decision-making and to exclude legal conclusions. The plaintiff concedes that Dr. Miller should not be allowed to offer legal opinions at trial and assures the court that such opinions will not be elicited; but the plaintiff asserts that Dr. Miller is a qualified expert as to the medical decision-making process and can offer admissible opinions on this topic at trial. Having reviewed the motions, responses, and submissions, the court is satisfied that Dr. Miller has used “reliable methods to reach his opinions; and those opinions [are] relevant to the facts of the case.” Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993)). The court will, of course, not allow Dr. Miller to testify regarding legal conclusions, but testimony on the subjects the plaintiff proposes will be allowed, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding admissibility and other considerations. Accordingly, the court finds that the defendants’ motions to exclude or limit certain expert opinions are DENIED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 24th day of September, 2021.

/s/ Neal Biggers NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Woods v. MHM Health Professionals, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-mhm-health-professionals-llc-msnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack