Perry Law, P.C. recently achieved wins in two separate cases. In each, plaintiffs filed motions to have physician testimony struck after affidavits were filed controverting medical treatment they had received. In each instance, the defendants were represented by Perry Law, P.C. founder Meloney Perry and attorney Stacy Thompson.
In Sydney Clemmons v. GEICO County Mutual Insurance Company and Ceondria Hobbs (Cause No. DC-20-03836), the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in April 2019. Following the accident, the plaintiff received medical treatment for alleged injuries, which she continues to seek to this day. The plaintiff filed medical and billing affidavits in May 2020 from six separate medical providers. In response, the defendant filed controverting affidavits from physicians Robert Nocerini, MD, and Jana Schieber, RN. The affidavits were met by a motion to strike filed by the plaintiff. While the plaintiff did not claim the physicians were unqualified to make their claims, they instead argued that they were not given reasonable notice of bases they intended to controvert at trial.
Thompson successfully argued that, in the case of Dr. Nocerini, a clear case was made that the treatment the plaintiff received – an epidural steroid injection – was not appropriate because they showed no signs of radiculopathy, which epidural steroid injections are intended to treat. Thompson was also able to show that, despite the plaintiff’s claim otherwise, Schieber clearly laid out the treatment she intended to controvert, as well as how and why she came to her conclusions.
In Leonard Beasley v. Government Employees Insurance Company dba GEICO (Cause No. 471-00077-2020), the plaintiff was also involved in a motor vehicle accident and later sued the defendant, claiming they were entitled to receive UM/UIM benefits under their policy and filing the relevant affidavits. The defendant filed affidavits from physicians Nocerini, Schieber, as well as Edward Le Cara, DC, controverting only some of the treatment the plaintiff had received. The plaintiff responded by requesting that all three witness affidavits be stricken, alleging that Dr. Le Cara failed to show his qualifications and that all three had failed to provide reasonable notice.
Once again, Stacy Thompson was able to show the court that Dr. Le Cara had spent years in his field and was clearly qualified to weigh in on the matter. Additionally, Thompson showed that Nocerini, Schieber, and Le Cara had not only provided reasonable notice of the claims they intended to controvert, but also met their responsibilities under applicable law.
In Clemmons, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike Schieber’s controverting affidavit, while denying the motion to strike Dr. Nocerini’s. In Beasley, the court also granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike Schieber’s controverting affidavit, while upholding the affidavits filed by Dr. Nocerini and Dr. Le Cara. The responses to the plaintiffs’ motions to strike in Clemmons and Beasley can be found here and here, respectively. The resulting court orders in both cases, also respectively, can be found here and here.