Mischelle Musser and Michael Musser v. Gentiva Health Services, F/k/a Olsten Health Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony because party lacked substantial justification for disclosing witnesses under Rule 26(a)(1) but not Rule 26(a)(2)
• upholding exclusion of late expert-witness report where party “never attempted to disclose any witnesses as experts until the defendants moved for summary judgment”
• noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed whether expert testimony had been properly excluded but that state law would be used to examine whether the lack of expert medical testimony affected the viability of the plaintiffs’ claims
• noting the fact “that defendant could have obtained the undisclosed information through its own efforts does not provide substantial justification”
• upholding exclusion of expert testimony as proportionate sanction for failure to disclose expert witnesses under Rule 26(a)
• affirming the district court's decision to exclude an expert witness at trial who was previously disclosed as a fact witness but not properly disclosed as an expert witness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).