injuries for which Plaintiff is claiming here. The short answer would be that, if it was germane to
diagnosis and treatment of the conditions for which Plaintiff was hospitalized, which are injuries
for which Plaintiff is claiming here, then relevance seems obvious. In any event, particularly in
light of Dr. Grant's testimony on the subject at the evidentiary hearing, the jury can consider the
opinions of the respective experts, likely to be much more nuanced than presented in submissions
to date, if and when the jury is called upon to determine specific causation.
Limitation of Testimony of Dr. Irene Grant
Defendants move pursuant to Uniform Rule §202.17 (22 NYCRR §202.17) to
preclude any testimony by Dr. Irene Grant about her treatment of Plaintiff, and the introduction
into evidence of any related records, on the ground that "no medical authorizations for said
treating doctor were ever tendered by the plaintiff" (see Motion In Limine to Preclude
Evidence dated September 14, 2012, ¶ 2.) As noted above, Dr. Grant was one of Plaintiff's
experts at the pre-trial evidentiary hearing on general causation, but she also testified, as
characterized by Defendants' counsel, "to having treated the plaintiff with anti-fungal
therapy, and moreover to the plaintiff [sic] having improved during the course of her
treatment" (see id. ¶ 4.) Attached as an exhibit to Defendants' papers is a copy of a
report dated December 10, 2010 from Dr. Grant to Plaintiff's counsel, which describes her
examination of Plaintiff on that date, apparently for the first time, but Defendants' counsel does
not state when they received the copy.
A treating physician, unlike a physician who examines the plaintiff only for purposes of