Deborah Porter Cahill v. Target Corporation

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 14-15238 & 15-10424
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cv-00231-HES-JRK
DEBORAH PORTER CAHILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TARGET CORPORATION,
a Foreign Profit Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 17, 2016)
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-15238 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Following a jury trial in this case, plaintiff Deborah Cahill, proceeding pro
se, appeals the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of defendant Target
Corporation (“Target”) after the jury found Target not liable in her negligence
action. On May 27, 2009, Cahill fell to the floor while inside a Target store, and
her complaint alleged that Target’s negligence proximately caused her injuries.
Additionally, Cahill appeals the district court’s December 18, 2014, order granting
Target reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The two appeals were consolidated by
this Court.
As to her first appeal, Cahill’s pro se brief is liberally construed to raise
claims that the district court erred (1) by admitting into evidence deposition
testimony by Dr. Paulo Monteiro, one of Cahill’s treating physicians, in which Dr.
Monteiro opined that certain surgeries Cahill received were not necessary to treat
injuries that might have been caused by the fall; (2) by failing to order a new trial
on the grounds that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence; (3) in its
handling of a prospective juror who admitted to knowing Dr. Richard Boehme,
another of Cahill’s treating physicians, and expressing a view that Dr. Boehme was
“pompous”; (4) in failing to remand the case to state court after Target removed it
to federal court; (5) in excluding from evidence Dr. Boehme’s opinion testimony
that Cahill’s injuries were caused by her fall at Target; (6) by failing to conduct
Case: 14-15238 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Daubert1 hearings or apply Daubert standards with respect to Dr. Boehme’s
testimony; (7) by permitting Dr. Chaim Rogozinski to testify as an expert witness
for Target; and (8) by setting deadlines for the disclosure of witnesses and expert
witnesses in the pre-trial Case Management Report.2 Cahill also claims that
Target’s excess liability insurer was required to pay her injury claims under a strict
vicarious liability theory.
Because this was a jury trial and Cahill had only minor portions of the
record transcribed, this Court is unable to review many of her claims. See Fed. R.
App. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or
conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the
appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that
finding or conclusion.”); Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)
(holding that this Court must affirm the district court when an appellant, pro se or
otherwise, fails to provide the record evidence that would enable this Court to
review challenges to evidentiary rulings or the sufficiency of the evidence).
To the extent there is arguably a sufficient record to allow review of some of
Cahill’s claims, we conclude that all such issues raised lack merit, and we hereby
affirm the final judgment of the district court in favor of defendant Target.
1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
2 This Court previously denied Cahill’s motion requesting this Court to consider
additional arguments and issues raised in a document entitled “Appendix Volume 13.” Cahill
did not submit a Reply Brief. Accordingly, we only consider arguments and issues raised in
Cahill’s October 22, 2015 brief.
Case: 14-15238 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
As to Cahill’s second appeal, because Cahill failed to raise any arguments or
otherwise address in her brief the district court’s December 18, 2014, order
granting reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to Target, she has abandoned her
challenge to this order. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324,
1330 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] legal claim or argument that has not been briefed
before the court is deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed.”).
AFFIRMED.
Case: 14-15238 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --