United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
KATINA B. HEBERT
ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
D. DICK CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant's, Ascension Parish School Board
(“APSB”), Motion in Limine to Strike Dr.
Warshowsky. The Plaintiff, Katina Hebert, has filed an
Opposition. The Court has considered the
Motion and Opposition, the evidence submitted, and the
applicable law and, for the reasons which follow, the Motion
shall be GRANTED.
Court discussed the facts and the procedural posture in prior
Rulings and they will not be reiterated herein. As
it relates to the subject Motion, Plaintiff originally
identified as an expert witness, inter alia, Dr.
Vimla Menon, M.D. Upon learning that Dr. Menon was not
available, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend her expert
witness list to include Dr. Allen B.
Warshowsky. The Plaintiff represented that Dr.
Warshowsky was a treating physician for purposes of Rule
26(a)(2)(C), as opposed to a retained “expert”
for purposes of Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff represented that
“Dr. Warshowsky's testimony will not go beyond
opinions that he formed during his treatment of Mrs.
Hebert.” The Court granted the Plaintiff's
motion to substitute her medical expert finding “good
cause to allow Plaintiff to disclose Dr. Warshowsky as an
expert pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C) for the limited purpose
of providing any expert opinions formed during his treatment
of Plaintiff” and further finding that “any
prejudice to Defendant is minimal as Dr. Warshowsky was
listed as a treating physician on Plaintiff's initial
the fact that the Plaintiff represented that Dr. Warshowsky
would testify as a treating physician under FRCP 26(a)(2)(C),
and the Court's explicit ruling that Dr. Warshowsky would
be limited to “providing any expert opinions formed
during his treatment of Plaintiff”, the Plaintiff
provided an expert report of Dr. Warshowsky. APSB contends
that Warshowsky's “report was not based on facts,
nor did it contain opinions limited to or ‘formed
during his treatment of Plaintiff'.” APSB argues
that Warshowsky's “trial deposition testimony was
based almost entirely on the “report” admittedly
prepared after suit was filed and after Dr. Warshowsky's
treatment of plaintiff, by the attorneys for Hebert! APSB
asserts that the trial testimony goes beyond the scope of the
permitted testimony and is improper. Accordingly, APSB seeks
to strike the “report” entirely and to limit the
witness' testimony to the medical treatment as outlined
in the discovery deposition.”
testimony by Dr. Warshowsky shall be excluded at trial for
the following reasons. Dr. Warshowsky is an OB/GYN who
practices as an “integrative holistic medicine
doctor”. Dr Warshowsky lacks the education, training,
and experience to provide opinion testimony regarding the
toxicity and exposure and alleged disability related thereto.
Dr Warshowsky admitted in his deposition that the review and
analysis of toxicological information, distances, and
exposure levels were not the type of information generally
relied upon by physicians in his field of
expertise. Warshowsky had no knowledge of the
proximity of the school where the Plaintiff worked to any
sources or possible sources of emissions or air pollution. He
had no factual information upon which to determine whether
the Plaintiff was exposed to any environmental toxins. He
admitted that he has no expertise in toxicology,
environmental sciences, allergies, immunology, neuroscience,
Dr. Warshowsky lacks any reliable clinical basis to opine as
to the etiology of Plaintiff's symptoms/complaints or the
nature, extent, and/or cause of any alleged disability. Dr.
Warshowsky examined the Plaintiff only once before the
Plaintiff knew she was going to be terminated by APSB. The
Plaintiff had two (2) office visits with Dr. Warshowsky after
the termination decision was made.
testimony is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
if (1) the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the
expert's reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony is sufficiently reliable, and (3) the testimony is
relevant. The opinions of Dr. Warshowsky sought to
be offered by the Plaintiff fail to satisfy all three
criteria and are hereby excluded. Therefore, the
Defendant's Motion in Limine is hereby GRANTED.
 Rec. Doc. 71.
 Rec. Doc. 107.
 Rec. Docs. 111 and 114.
 Rec. Doc. 39-1.
 Rec. Doc. 39, ¶s 6-7.