Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-1787.
June 1, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses in this diversity motor vehicle accident case. After discussing scheduling issues with counsel on the telephone last week, the court was led to believe that counsel could resolve the issues presented in this motion. Unfortunately, we have been advised that counsel's efforts were not entirely successful.
In the Motion, the Defendants sought responses to supplemental interrogatories, a number of documents relating to Mr. Morse's application for Social Security benefits, and all mental health records from January, 1999, through the present. By telephone message, defense counsel advised the court that although Plaintiff has responded to the supplemental interrogatories, he has produced only minimal documentation regarding his Social Security application and has not produced his mental health records. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants' motion shall be granted in part and denied in part.
During the telephone conference last week, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that he had withdrawn any claim relating to his client's mental health. Therefore, he claims the mental health records are irrelevant. Defense counsel argued that the records are relevant because Plaintiff's depression provided a partial basis for Plaintiff's application for and receipt of Social Security disability benefits.
Because we find that permitting evidence regarding Mr. Morse's Social Security application and benefits would usurp the jury's role in determining the extent of Mr. Morse's injuries, we will not permit any reference to the Social Security application, proceeding, or Mr. Morse's receipt of benefits. Thus, the documentation sought by the Defendants regarding the Social Security application, correspondence, and mental health records are irrelevant to this proceeding.
We also note that evidence of Mr. Morse's Social Security disability benefits is also inadmissible pursuant to the collateral source rule, which prohibits evidence of collateral source benefits to offset damages. Lee v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 1995 WL 734108 *4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 1995) (citing Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 375 U.S. 34 (1963); Eichel v. New York Central Railroad Co., 375 U.S. 253 (1963)).
In this case, the court has assumed that Mr. Morse's alleged disability would play a pivotal role in the jury's determination of damages. This assumption was further bolstered during the telephone conference last week when both sides referred to a "life plan" prepared for trial by the Plaintiff. On this pivotal issue, an administrative agency has made the determination that Mr. Morse is disabled. We note that the Social Security Administration's decision is based on a completely different standard of review and included evidence of impairments that are not relevant to the civil case before us.
The role of the court in assessing the admissibility of this evidence is similar to that which applies when we consider expert testimony. In assessing whether an expert witness will be permitted to express an opinion, the court must consider whether the expert's testimony will usurp the role of the jury in making credibility determinations or deciding the ultimate issues in the case, see Whitmill v. City of Philadelphia, 29 F. Supp.2d 241, 247 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (quoting United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294 (2d Cir. 1991)). Here, although no expert would take the stand, expert testimony would be given through an administrative decision, granting Mr. Morse disability benefits. Permitting the admission of the Social Security determination of disability would confuse the jury regarding this issue, if not usurp its role entirely. Hence, discovery related to the Social Security proceedings is irrelevant, as are Plaintiff's mental health records since counsel has withdrawn that issue from the case.
To the extent the Defendants sought and have not yet received documents regarding seminars Plaintiff attended, employment information, and documents regarding the Plaintiff's experts, the motion will be granted.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2004, upon consideration of the Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Disclosures, and after consideration of the representations made by counsel during a telephone conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall provide documents responsive to Request #2, regarding seminars attended by the Plaintiff, Request #7, regarding Plaintiff's work for Lauria Visuals, and Request #8, regarding expert witness publications. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither side shall present any evidence regarding Plaintiff's application for, the proceedings surrounding, or his receipt of Social Security disability benefits.