Celmer v. Marriot Corporation

Full title: JOSEPH CELMER, ET AL. v. MARRIOT CORPORATION, ET AL

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 23, 2004

Civil Action No. 03-CV-5229 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-CV-5229.

August 23, 2004

MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICHARD B. SURRICK, District Judge

AND NOW, this 23^rd day of August, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Joseph Celmer's Prior Injuries, Accidents or Legal Actions and Regina's Celmer's Nervous Breakdown, (Doc. No. 30), we find as follows:

1. In response to defense counsel's question regarding past accidents, injuries, and legal actions, Plaintiff testified that:

• He had prostrate surgery approximately fifteen (15) years prior.

• He had a slip and fall on ice on his own property with no medical treatment approximately four (4) to five (5) years ago.

• He was a witness in a legal suit brought by the Federal Government regarding lead poisoning.

• He has had two motor vehicle accidents. The first when he was thirty (30) to forty (40) years old in which he suffered a bruised right hand and right knee and had one visit to the emergency room.¹ The second accident occurred approximately two (2) years ago and was described as a "fender bender" in which no injuries were suffered.

• He broke his ankle while working for Pathmark [prior to 1993] and was in a cast for four (4) to six (6) weeks but was able to work.

1 More accurately, Plaintiff stated that he was in his thirties or late forties. (J. Celmer Dep. at 38, Ex. A to Pl.'s Mot. in Limine)

(Pl.'s Mot. in Limine at ¶¶ 4-5 (citing J. Celmer Dep. at 18, 35-36, 37, 38-40, 40-41, 43-44, Ex. A to Pl.'s Mot. in Limine).)

2. Plaintiff contends that Defendant should be precluded from raising these incidents at trial because they are inadmissable under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.² Specifically, Plaintiff claims that none of the previous injuries were sustained to those areas of the body that he presently claims were injured by Defendant's negligence, and "[n]o medical records suggest, mention, or otherwise discuss any causal relationship between any of these past injuries and Mr. Celmer's current problems." (Pl.'s Mot. in Limine at unnumbered 3.) Plaintiff argues that allowing this medical history into evidence would "prejudice the jury in suggesting a causal relationship between his prior injuries and the injuries sustained in this accident." (Pl.'s Mot. in Limine at ¶ 8.)

3. Defendant claims that because Plaintiff has "placed his medical health at issue in this litigation," his prior accidents are relevant and admissible evidence. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.'s Resp. at unnumbered 1.) Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's health prior to the fall "directly relates to whether Plaintiff's current injuries are causally related to the incident at issue." (Id. at unnumbered 2.)

4. District courts have broad discretion in determining what evidence is relevant, and in evaluating probative value versus unfair prejudice. Cowgill v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 832 F.2d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir. 1978)). In this case, Defendant has failed to demonstrate how the aforementioned events are at all related to Plaintiff's current injuries. Defendant would have us believe that every detail of Plaintiff's health history is related to the instant case, simply because Plaintiff has put his present injuries at issue. If Plaintiff had previously injured the body parts in question here, or if there were some other link of the past injuries to the present claims, then the history might be relevant. However, Defendant has failed to offer any evidence or suggest any similarity between the past and present injuries, other than the fact that the past and present injuries relate to Plaintiff's health. In addition, the report from Defendant's medical experts does not even discuss these past injuries.³ Accordingly, we fail to see the relevance of this information. As to the possibility of prejudice, we conclude that the jury could be confused and/or misled by Defendant's use of this medical history.⁴ Based on the record, we conclude that the probative value does not outweigh the potential for prejudice.

5. Plaintiff's Motion also seeks to preclude evidence of Regina Celmer's Nervous Breakdown. Plaintiff contends that Regina's Celmer's claim is limited to loss of consortium. According to Plaintiff, Regina Celmer suffered a nervous breakdown in the mid-1990s, but has had no hospitalization since 1996. (Pl.'s Mot. in Limine at ¶ 13 (citing R. Celmer Dep. at 8-11, Ex. C. to Pl.'s Mot. in Limine).) Again, Defendant's only argument in support of admitting the evidence is that Regina Celmer has "placed her own emotional and mental health at issue in this litigation," and that Regina Celmer's "mental health and condition prior to her husband's fall" directly relate to her consortium claim. Defendant makes no attempt to establish a relationship between Regina Celmer's nervous breakdown more than eight years ago, and her present claim. Moreover, Defendant never requested any medical information related to Regina Celmer. (Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. in Limine at 2.) Defendant has failed to establish the probative value of this potentially prejudicial information or its relevance to the consortium claim.

6. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.

2 Federal Rule of Evidence 401 states:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

FED. R. EVID. 401.
Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states:

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

FED. R. EVID. 402.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states:

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

FED. R. EVID. 403.

3 Defendant's own medical expert, who is not scheduled to testify at trial, does not discuss a connection between these past injuries and Plaintiff's present health issues.

4 We note that our decision is limited to the admissibility of those past injuries and/or accidents that are specifically outlined in Plaintiff's Motion, and listed herein above. If Defendant is able to provide this Court with evidence of injuries and/or health complications related to the injuries presently in question, then we will consider its admissibility at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.