Key Takeaways
In Roubert v. Amazon, the district court allowed a replacement expert to rely on a deceased expert’s report, treating it as equivalent to other medical records typically reviewed by experts. This ruling supports the use of prior expert reports to form new, independent opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 703.
In Roubert v. Amazon, the plaintiff employee sued Amazon after she allegedly tripped over a bolt at an Amazon warehouse and claimed injuries to her shoulder, knee, and back. 2025 WL 607060, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 2025). All parties hired medical experts to evaluate the plaintiff’s injuries. Defendants’ medical expert completed his examination of the plaintiff and drafted a report of his findings but then became ill and passed away.
Defendants retained a replacement expert who did not physically examine the plaintiff but instead submitted a report that relied on plaintiff’s medical records, which included the records and report prepared by the defendants’ former expert and records created by plaintiff’s expert. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of defendants’ replacement expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 703. Plaintiff argued that the replacement expert relied on the deceased expert's report and records made in anticipation of litigation which were not materials on which experts in the field would “reasonably rely.” Id. at 2.
The district court denied plaintiff’s motion and admitted the replacement expert’s testimony. The court treated the deceased expert’s report as no different than the records prepared by plaintiff’s physicians documenting their contemporaneous treatment, noting that “it is common and standard practice for physicians to review a patient’s medical records when rendering their own diagnoses.” Id. at 4. Accordingly, the court found it proper to “rely on [the deceased expert’s] report following [deceased expert’s] personal observation of Plaintiff since evaluation of medical records is a reliable method to form the basis of expert testimony regarding a party’s medical condition.” Id. (emphasis added). The court declined to distinguish pre-litigation medical records from reports prepared for litigation, noting that “there is nothing improper about a medical report prepared solely for litigation.” Id.
The court went on to note that the replacement expert did not simply parrot the work of the deceased expert but used the report, and other evidence to form his own opinions. Id. Because the replacement expert formed new and independent opinions, the court found that Rule 703 was satisfied. Id.
The ruling is significant in that it found that the deceased expert’s report was of equivalent reliability as other medical records upon which a medical expert might also rely.
