`
`Filed in District Court
`State of Minnesota
`9/15/2022 10:54 AM
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`Court File No.:43-CV-20-672
`Case Type: Medical Malpractice
`Judge: Jody L. Winters
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO
`EXCLUDE THE EXPERT TESTIMONY
`OF HENRY MILLER, Ph.D.
`
`STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`COUNTY OF McLEOD
`
`
`
`Macey Reid, a minor child, by
`Her Parents and Natural Guardians,
`Amber Reid and Dustin Reid, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`v.
`
`Glencoe Regional Health Services
`d/b/a Glencoe Regional Hospital
`a/d/b/a Glencoe Regional Health,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO: DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD.
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs Macey Reid (a
`
`minor child, by her parents and natural guardians Amber Reid and Duston Reid, Amber Reid,
`
`individually, and Dustin Reid, individually, will move the Court for the following relief on
`
`November 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard via Zoom before
`
`the Honorable Jody L. Winters of the McLeod County District Court. Zoom log-in details will be
`
`provided.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs hereby move this Court to exclude the opinions of Defendant’s expert witness,
`
`MOTION
`
`Henry Miller, Ph.D., because they are not admissible under substantive Minnesota law, the Rules
`
`of Evidence, and the Rules of Civil Procedure. Dr. Miller intends to challenge the value of Macey
`
`Reid’s future medical care by claiming that Macey might be able to obtain discounted medical
`
`care as a result of discounts negotiated by Medicare and/or other health insurance providers. This
`
`
`
`43-CV-20-672
`
`Filed in District Court
`State of Minnesota
`9/15/2022 10:54 AM
`
`type of testimony is expressly barred by Minn. Stat. § 548.251, Subd. 5, as is discussed in detail
`
`below. It is pure speculation to assume that Macey will have insurance coverage from a provider
`
`able to negotiate the same discounts negotiated by Medicare, or that any insurance provider,
`
`including Medicare, will be able to negotiate for care at the rates identical to the current rates in
`
`the future.
`
`Further, in addition to the blatant attempt to inject into the case the possibility that Macey
`
`might have health insurance coverage to cover some of her future medical expenses, the discounted
`
`rates Miller relies on for most of his opinions is completely irrelevant to Macey. Miller relies
`
`almost exclusively on the discounted healthcare prices negotiated by Medicare despite the fact that
`
`Macey is not a Medicare beneficiary and will not be eligible for Medicare for many decades.
`
`This motion is filed pursuant to the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of
`
`Evidence, including, but not limited to, Minnesota Rules of Evidence 702, 403, and 104, all the
`
`records, files, and proceedings herein, together with a forthcoming memorandum of law and
`
`supporting documents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/Katrina L. Wallace
`Stephen C. Offutt, (Minn. Bar #0387206)
`Katrina Wallace (pro hac vice)
`McCarthy, Winkelman, Mester & Offutt, LLP
`4300 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 205
`Lanham, MD 20706
`T: (301) 262-7422
`F: (301) 262-0562
`soffutt@mwmlawyers.com
`kwallace@mwmlawyers.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
