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.

Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division

June 5, 2018

DANNY DYKES, Individually and on behalf of the Estate and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of James A. Dykes, Deceased PLAINTIFF
v.
CLEVELAND NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER; and JOHN AND JANE DOES I-X DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          DEBRA M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This medical malpractice action is before the Court for consideration of Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's motion in limine. Doc. #108.

         I Procedural History

         On April 20, 2015, Danny Dykes filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Bolivar County, Mississippi, individually and on behalf of the estate and wrongful death beneficiaries of James A. Dykes, deceased, against Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center and “John and Jane Does I-X.” Doc. #2. In his complaint, Danny alleges that James died as a result of negligence while a patient at the defendant's nursing home facility. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, 12. Cleveland Nursing subsequently removed the state action to this Court on the ground of diversity jurisdiction. Doc. #1 at ¶ 4.

         On May 15, 2018, following a period of discovery and two unsuccessful motions to compel arbitration by Cleveland Nursing, Cleveland Nursing filed a motion in limine. Doc. #108. Danny responded in opposition to the motion. Doc. #111. Cleveland Nursing did not reply.

         II Standard

         “The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence. Evidence should not be excluded in limine unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Harkness v. Bauhaus U.S.A., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-129, 2015 WL 631512, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2015) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

         III Analysis

         Cleveland Nursing's motion in limine seeks to exclude from trial: (1) hearsay from James' healthcare providers; (2) evidence or argument regarding documents not produced by Cleveland Nursing; (3) lay opinion and hearsay evidence regarding James' wound; (4) evidence regarding conditions at the Cleveland Nursing facility; (5) evidence related to punitive damages; (6) statements criticizing Cleveland Nursing for not calling current or former staff members to testify; (7) testimony or evidence referencing the size or wealth of Cleveland Nursing; (8) references to Cleveland Nursing's counsel; and (9) references to prior lawsuits or complaints against Cleveland Nursing. Doc. #108 at 1-7.

         A. Hearsay

         Cleveland Nursing first seeks to exclude “hearsay testimony about what [James' family members] were told by one or more healthcare providers regarding [James'] condition.” Id. Danny responds that he does not intend to offer such evidence.[1] Doc. #111 at 3. Accordingly, the motion in limine will be denied as moot on this point.

         B. Documents Not Produced by Cleveland Nursing

         Cleveland Nursing argues “[t]he Court should preclude any reference to documents allegedly not produced by Cleveland in response to discovery or letter requests from Plaintiffs' counsel.” Doc. #108 at 3. Danny represents that he does not intend to offer such evidence. Doc. #111 at 3. Accordingly, the motion will be denied as moot with respect to this evidence.

         C. Lay and Opinion Testimony Regarding James' Wound

         Cleveland Nursing moves to prevent various family members of James from offering opinion testimony that James developed a wound due to substandard care and that the wound would have healed had it been treated properly. Doc. #108 at 3-4. Danny responds that he does not intend to offer evidence on causation. Doc. #111 at 3. However, Danny states:

family members are expected to testify that [James] developed a pressure sore that turned into a stage 4 decubitus ulcer while simultaneously observing that staff did not turn and reposition [James] or change his soiled diapers as frequently. Family members' observations that [James'] ulcer developed and worsened in tandem with a noticeable decline in the quality of care (i.e., less ...

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.