United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY K.FRIZZELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court is the Motion to Exclude, in Whole or Part, the
Testimony of Dr. Gary A. Rouse [Doc. 24] of defendant the
United States of America. For the reasons set forth below,
the motion is granted.
a wrongful death case brought by plaintiff Lera Schulze
against the United States of America for the death of her
husband, John G. Schulze. On June 8, 2017, John Schulze
reported suicidal thoughts to a nurse practitioner and was
escorted to the Oklahoma City Veterans Affairs Health Care
System Medical Center (“VA Hospital”) by law
enforcement. The VA Hospital discharged John Schulze
approximately two hours later. Two days later, on June 10,
2017, John Schulze died of a self-inflicted gunshot
lawsuit, plaintiff alleges defendant breached the standard of
care by releasing John Schulze on June 8, 2017, rather than
admitting him for an extended mental health evaluation.
Plaintiff asserts a single claim for wrongful death pursuant
to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1053.
retained Dr. Gary A. Rouse, a licensed clinical psychologist,
to opine as to whether defendant39;s evaluation and
treatment of John Schulze on June 8, 2017, satisfied the
applicable standard of care. Dr. Rouse provided a two-page
report opining, in relevant part,
The VA records show the Veteran was admitted at 13:05 and
released at 15:03. In my 36 years in private practice, I have
never had a patient that I have requested
hospitalization/evaluation for suicidal ideation, and in
particular transported by law enforcement, “treated and
released” in the same day, much less within a two hour
period. This Veteran killed himself the next day by shooting
himself in the head. His wife found him the following
I strongly believe the VA failed in their treatment of this
Veteran and should be held responsible for this failure,
which resulted in the Veteran taking his own life due to his
untreated severe psychological distress, which was reported
directly to the VA by his provider prior to his admission.
[Doc. 24-3, p. 2]. Defendant now seeks to exclude Dr.
Rouse39;s testimony, arguing Dr. Rouse39;s opinions fail
to satisfy the Daubert standard39;s reliability
Daubert Analysis 
to Federal Rule of Evidence 702,
[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the
form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
understand the evidence ...