Case Explained: Charley v. United States, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-06

Docket: 1:22-CV-00033-JB-JFR)

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in a Federal Tort Claims Act medical malpractice case. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiffs’ causation expert, Dr. Bruce Polsky, as a sanction for repeated violations of court orders and failure to comply with discovery obligations. The court applied the five-factor test established in *Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds* to evaluate the exclusion sanction, finding that: (1) the defendants suffered actual prejudice due to wasted time and lost settlement opportunities; (2) the plaintiffs’ conduct interfered with the judicial process by causing months of delay; (3) the plaintiffs were culpable for willful noncompliance with court orders, even absent bad faith; (4) the plaintiffs had constructive notice that failure to comply could lead to dismissal or exclusion; and (5) lesser sanctions were insufficient given the history of noncompliance. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of a substitute expert, Dr. Michelle Harkins, ruling that her untimely affidavit did not cure the lack of admissible expert testimony required under New Mexico law to prove causation in a medical malpractice claim. The practical consequence is that the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims are dismissed with prejudice because they failed to produce the essential expert evidence necessary to establish causation, leaving no genuine dispute of material fact for trial.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.