Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 09-12-2024
Case Style:
Jose Trejo, et al. v. California Forensic Medical Group
Case Number: 20:cv-1465
Judge: David D. Leshner
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Not available
Description:
San Diego, California personal injury medical malpractice lawyer represented the Plaintiffs.
In February 2019, Jose Banda Pichardo (“Pichardo”) died by suicide while in custody at the Imperial County Sheriff's Department Regional Adult Detention Facility (“ICRADF”). CFMG is a medical provider that contracted with Imperial County to provide medical and mental health care to inmates at ICRADF. Pichardo's parents, Jose Trejo and Susana Banda, assert causes of action against CFMG for negligence and wrongful death arising from their son's suicide.
* * *
Both parties will offer expert testimony regarding whether Pichardo's suicide was preventable. Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Nicole Johnson, will testify that Pichardo's suicide “was likely foreseeable and preventable had he received adequate and timely responses to his sick calls and appropriate mental health follow up while detained at [ICRADF].” Dkt. No. 209-5 at 11. CFMG's expert, Kimberly Pearson, will testify that “[d]espite utilizing nationally accepted standards and procedures related to suicide prevention, not every suicide (jail or otherwise) is preventable.” Dkt. No. 209-2 at 20. Plaintiffs move to preclude Pearson from testifying that not all suicides are preventable.
* * *
“The Federal Rules of Evidence allow expert testimony that will assist a trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, so long as ‘(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.'” Boyd v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 576 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 702). “[E]xpert testimony must be both relevant and reliable to be admissible.” BillFloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc., 105 F.4th 1269, 1275 (9th Cir. 2024); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) (trial judge must ensure “that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand”).
Outcome: Motion in limine granted.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: