Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Defendant From Utilizing Second Expert After First Expert Died

By Daniel Cummins on March 17, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Court Denies Plaintiff's Motion to Preclude Defendant From Utilizing Second Expert After First Expert Died
In the case of Roubert v. Amazon, No. 2:21-CV-03091-CMR (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2025 Rufe, J.), the court addressed issues involving the death of a Defendant’s expert during the course of a personal injury civil litigation matter.

According to the Opinion, when the Defendant’s first medical expert passed away, the Plaintiff filed a Motion In Limine to preclude the medical testimony of the Defendant’s second expert as inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 and/or to preclude that second expert from referencing or relying upon the expert report of the first expert.

The court ruled that a deceased physician’s expert opinion was still permitted to be utilized by subsequent experts in their testimony.

The court reasoned that it was common standard and practice for a doctor to review medical records and other reports when rendering their own diagnoses. Accordingly, the court found that it was proper for the Defendant’s new expert to rely upon the deceased expert’s report which was issued after the deceased expert had personally examined the Plaintiff. The court noted that this was proper given that the evaluation of medical records and reports is a liable method for an expert to form an expert opinion regarding a party’s medical condition.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the second expert’s testimony given that there was nothing improper about a medical report prepared solely for litigation.

The judge additionally confirmed that FRE 703 does not require that a party be able to cross-examine every author of a record upon which the testifying expert relies upon at trial. Any potential prejudice resulting from their new expert testifying regarding the deceased expert’s report could be mitigated by cross-examination of the testifying doctor as to the basis of his opinion, by presenting contrary expert testimony, or by way of the presentation of careful instructions to the jury on the burden of proof.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article – “Fed. Court OKs Use Of Deceased Expert’s Report In Medical Testimony,” by Riley Brennan of the Legal Intelligencer (Feb. 25, 2025).

Photo of Daniel Cummins Daniel Cummins

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in…

Daniel E. Cummins is a civil litigator and Partner in the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of Cummins Law, which is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, just outside of Scranton. He has served as a columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and appeared in the Best Lawyers in America Director every year since 2015. He is the creator and sole author of Tort Talk, a blog dedicated to discussing updates, trends, and thoughts regarding Civil Litigation Law.

Read more about Daniel CumminsEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Personal Injury
  • Blog:
    Tort Talk
  • Organization:
    Foley, Comerford & Cummins
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo