Anesthesiology Expert Barred from Testifying About Alleged Strip Search
Posted on June 13, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
The claims against La-Norma Ramirez and Washington County stem from Plaintiff Danyale Blackmore’s booking and release at the Washington County Jail.
Blackmore alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was allegedly strip-searched at the Jail.
Defendant sought to exclude or limit at trial the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Scott Allen.
Anesthesiology Expert Witness
Scott Allen is a licensed medical doctor with specialization in anesthesiology. He has been board certified since 2017 by the American Board of Anesthesiology.
Allen currently practices as an anesthesiologist with Mountain West Anesthesiology and has privileges at Intermountain Health Care, specifically at St. George Regional Hospital in St. George, Utah and Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff received multiple ketamine treatments at Allen’s clinic, starting on October 5, 2020, and met with Allen during at least three of her visits to the clinic.
Allen was retained to testify that the Plaintiff’s arrest and the events surrounding it were extremely traumatic for her, leading to serious psychological and emotional issues.
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate the reliability of Allen’s testimony for some of the matters for which he was designated as an expert
The Defendant argued that Allen’s methods and opinions are unreliable because ketamine is not widely accepted as a standard treatment within the medical community. They also noted that Allen had only a few treatment sessions with the Plaintiff and based his understanding of her condition primarily on her ketamine treatment records.
However, in his deposition, Allen explained that ketamine is a recognized treatment for certain medical and mental health conditions. He also testified that he used specific criteria and relied on sufficient facts to conclude that the Plaintiff exhibited symptoms consistent with anxiety, depression, or PTSD.
Despite this, Allen did not provide an adequate basis to formally diagnose the Plaintiff with any medical or mental health condition. He also lacked personal knowledge of her arrest and alleged strip search. Ultimately, Allen did not diagnose the Plaintiff and cannot reliably determine the cause of her symptoms or the source of any diagnoses she may have received.
Allen’s anticipated testimony, as limited in scope, is relevant and admissible
The Defendant argued that even if Allen’s testimony meets the standards of Rule 702, it is irrelevant because it would not help the jury decide whether the Plaintiff was strip searched.
Allen will not be allowed to testify that the strip search occurred or that it caused the Plaintiff to develop PTSD or any other medical or mental health condition. He also may not vouch for the Plaintiff’s credibility or state that he believes her version of events is true. However, this does not mean that his testimony is irrelevant to the issues at trial.
Allen is permitted to testify about his direct observations of the Plaintiff during her ketamine treatments, as well as his communications with her during those sessions. Such testimony is generally not considered hearsay. If a proper foundation is laid and the testimony otherwise meets the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court held that Allen may also testify about general matters such as mental health diagnoses and the Plaintiff’s potential need for future ketamine treatments.
This testimony is highly relevant to the issue of damages and may also be used to rebut the opinions and testimony of the Defendant’s expert, provided it meets evidentiary standards.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Scott Allen.
Key Takeaway:
It is important to note that Allen never diagnosed the Plaintiff with any specific medical or mental health condition. While he may speak generally about medical and mental health diagnoses, he is not permitted to testify or offer an opinion that the Plaintiff has, or is suffering from, any specific condition such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD.
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Mental Health Expert’s PTSD Diagnosis Was Deemed Reliable
Corrections Expert’s Opinions on the Strip Search Excluded
Social Work Expert’s Testimony on PTSD Symptoms in Adult Women Admitted
Family Medicine Expert’s Opinions on Opposing Experts’ Qualifications Excluded
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Blackmore V. Ramirez |
| Docket Number: | 4:21cv26 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Utah |
| Order Date: | May 27, 2025 |
