Preview
20
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT (WOBURN)
C.A. NO.: 1781CV00814
JUSTIN URBAN )
Plaintiff )
) 2/19/2021
v. )
)
KEITH WESTON AND ) RECEIVED
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL __)
SERVICES CORP. )
Defendants )
DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DR. MORLEY FROM
TESTIFYING AT TRIAL CONCERNING THE PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBILITY FOR
FUTURE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND/OR THE POSSIBLE WORSENING OF THE
PLAINTIFF CONDITION
NOW COME the Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp., in the
above-captioned action, and hereby respectfully move the Court to preclude the Plaintiffs expert
Dr. Morley from testifying at trial regarding the possible need for future medical treatment and/or
the possibility that the plaintiff may experience a worsening of his condition. In addition, the
Defendants request the Court to strike and redact the portions of Dr. Morley’s report that refer or
relate to possible future medical care and/or the possible worsening of the plaintiff's condition.
In Dr. Morley’s report dated September 8, 2016, he commented on the “possibility” that
the Plaintiff “may” require certain future medical care and also commented on the “possibility”
that the plaintiff “may” experience a worsening of his condition in the future. These speculative
opinions are inadmissible and should be precluded at trial.
An opinion regarding the possibility that a future medical procedure could be required or
that a medical issue may develop in the future is not admissible as a matter of law black letter
{B0958105.1}Massachusetts law. It is clear that “[w]here the relation of cause and effect between two facts has
to be proved ... the testimony of an expert that such relation is possible, conceivable or reasonable,
without more, is not enough.” See Berardi v. Menicks, 340 Mass. 396, 402 (1960). See also
DeFilippo's Case, 284 Mass. 531, 534-535, 188 N.E. 245; Halnan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.,
296 Mass. 219, 223-224, 5 N.E.2d 209; Josi's Case, 324 Mass. 415, 418, 86 N.E.2d 641;
Hachadourian's Case, Mass., 162 N.E.2d 663; Coastal Aviation Industries, Inc. v. Henry Nelson
etal., 2001 Mass. Super LEXIS 302 (2001) (“It is well established that in order to have evidentiary
value, an expert's opinion must be expressed in terms of probability, not mere possibility ... [a]n
expert opinion stated in terms of possibilities does not satisfy [a party's] burden to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that [a party's] negligence proximately caused the injury
complained of.”). “An opinion based solely on speculation is without probative value.” Jd. at
103.Goffredo v. Mercedes-Benz Truck Co., Inc., 402 Mass. 97, 102 (1988). Simply put, an
expert’s opinion must be stated in terms of probability rather than in terms of possibilities.
WHEREFORE the Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp.,
respectfully move the Court to preclude the Plaintiff's expert Dr. Morley from testifying at trial
concerning the Plaintiffs possibility for future medical care and/ or treatment and worsening of
condition. Accordingly, the Defendants request the Court to strike and redact Dr. Morley’s report
in accordance with the Courts ruling on the motion to preclude.
(B0958105.1}THE DEFENDANTS,
KEITH WESTON AND
INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP.,
BY ITS ATTORNEYS,
A
Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852)
Email: SCarroll@boyleshaughnessy.com
Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800)
Email: SPavao@boyleshaughnessy.com
Boyle | Shaughnessy Law PC
25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 201
Braintree, MA 02184
Phone: (617) 451-2000
Fax: (617) 451-5775
DATED: 2/16/21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and/or Sup. Ct. R. 9A, I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a copy of
the foregoing document has been served via e-mail and/or first-class mail postage prepaid on all parties or their
representatives in this action as listed below this 16" day of February, 2021:
Counsel for Plaintiff, Justin Urban
Emest J. Palazzolo, Jr., Esq.
Richard J. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan & Sullivan, LLP
83 Walnut Street
Wellesley, MA 02481
Zz
Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852)
Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800)
Counsel for Defendants, Keith Weston and
Interstate Electrical Services Corp.
(B0958105.1}
Preview
20 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT (WOBURN) C.A. NO.: 1781CV00814 JUSTIN URBAN ) Plaintiff ) ) 2/19/2021 v. ) ) KEITH WESTON AND ) RECEIVED INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL __) SERVICES CORP. ) Defendants ) DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DR. MORLEY FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL CONCERNING THE PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBILITY FOR FUTURE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND/OR THE POSSIBLE WORSENING OF THE PLAINTIFF CONDITION NOW COME the Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp., in the above-captioned action, and hereby respectfully move the Court to preclude the Plaintiffs expert Dr. Morley from testifying at trial regarding the possible need for future medical treatment and/or the possibility that the plaintiff may experience a worsening of his condition. In addition, the Defendants request the Court to strike and redact the portions of Dr. Morley’s report that refer or relate to possible future medical care and/or the possible worsening of the plaintiff's condition. In Dr. Morley’s report dated September 8, 2016, he commented on the “possibility” that the Plaintiff “may” require certain future medical care and also commented on the “possibility” that the plaintiff “may” experience a worsening of his condition in the future. These speculative opinions are inadmissible and should be precluded at trial. An opinion regarding the possibility that a future medical procedure could be required or that a medical issue may develop in the future is not admissible as a matter of law black letter {B0958105.1}Massachusetts law. It is clear that “[w]here the relation of cause and effect between two facts has to be proved ... the testimony of an expert that such relation is possible, conceivable or reasonable, without more, is not enough.” See Berardi v. Menicks, 340 Mass. 396, 402 (1960). See also DeFilippo's Case, 284 Mass. 531, 534-535, 188 N.E. 245; Halnan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 296 Mass. 219, 223-224, 5 N.E.2d 209; Josi's Case, 324 Mass. 415, 418, 86 N.E.2d 641; Hachadourian's Case, Mass., 162 N.E.2d 663; Coastal Aviation Industries, Inc. v. Henry Nelson etal., 2001 Mass. Super LEXIS 302 (2001) (“It is well established that in order to have evidentiary value, an expert's opinion must be expressed in terms of probability, not mere possibility ... [a]n expert opinion stated in terms of possibilities does not satisfy [a party's] burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that [a party's] negligence proximately caused the injury complained of.”). “An opinion based solely on speculation is without probative value.” Jd. at 103.Goffredo v. Mercedes-Benz Truck Co., Inc., 402 Mass. 97, 102 (1988). Simply put, an expert’s opinion must be stated in terms of probability rather than in terms of possibilities. WHEREFORE the Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp., respectfully move the Court to preclude the Plaintiff's expert Dr. Morley from testifying at trial concerning the Plaintiffs possibility for future medical care and/ or treatment and worsening of condition. Accordingly, the Defendants request the Court to strike and redact Dr. Morley’s report in accordance with the Courts ruling on the motion to preclude. (B0958105.1}THE DEFENDANTS, KEITH WESTON AND INTERSTATE ELECTRICAL SERVICES CORP., BY ITS ATTORNEYS, A Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852) Email: SCarroll@boyleshaughnessy.com Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800) Email: SPavao@boyleshaughnessy.com Boyle | Shaughnessy Law PC 25 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 201 Braintree, MA 02184 Phone: (617) 451-2000 Fax: (617) 451-5775 DATED: 2/16/21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 5(a) and/or Sup. Ct. R. 9A, I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served via e-mail and/or first-class mail postage prepaid on all parties or their representatives in this action as listed below this 16" day of February, 2021: Counsel for Plaintiff, Justin Urban Emest J. Palazzolo, Jr., Esq. Richard J. Sullivan, Esq. Sullivan & Sullivan, LLP 83 Walnut Street Wellesley, MA 02481 Zz Scott M. Carroll, Esq. (BBO# 640852) Stacie E. Pavao, Esq. (BBO# 703800) Counsel for Defendants, Keith Weston and Interstate Electrical Services Corp. (B0958105.1}