Walker et al v. AIU Insurance Company et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Donald Walker, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AIU Insurance Company,
Defendant.
No. CV-23-01641-PHX-JAT
ORDER
On March 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike Testimony of Non-Retained
Experts Dr. Gendy and Dr. Zoltan. (Doc. 108). Therein, Plaintiffs argued that AIU (1)
improperly disclosed Dr. Zoltan, an IME physician, as a non-retained expert, and (2)
disclosed no basis for Dr. Zoltan’s opinion that “any delay in [Mr. Walker’s] surgery or
continued/increased pain did not cause any additional damage or impairment.” (Doc. 108
at 2, 5).
Plaintiffs did not seek to exclude all of Dr. Zoltan’s testimony—rather, Plaintiffs
asked that Dr. Zoltan be precluded from opining that the surgical delay did not cause Mr.
Walker additional harm because Dr. Zoltan lacks foundation to form that opinion. (Doc.
117 at 7). Plaintiffs argued that because Dr. Zoltan’s opinion should be precluded on that
basis, “[t]he question of whether an underlying IME physician may be a non-retained
expert, under Rule 26(a)(2)(C), is mooted.” (Doc. 108 at 5). In the Court’s August 29, 2025
Order, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to partially preclude Dr. Zoltan’s testimony and
accepted Plaintiff’s conclusion that the issue of whether an IME doctor can ever be a non-
Case 2:23-cv-01641-JAT Document 170 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
retained expert is moot. (Doc. 136 at 10). The Court left open the question of whether
retaining an IME doctor in a workers’ compensation proceeding could, by definition, make
that doctor a “retained expert” in a bad faith action. (Doc. 136 at 10).
Plaintiffs did not move to preclude Dr. Zoltan through a motion in limine. Plaintiffs
shall advise the Court whether they intend to object to Dr. Zoltan’s testimony at trial, and
if so, on what grounds.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall, by Thursday, February 19, 2026, file a
brief—limited to 5 pages—advising the Court about Plaintiff’s intent to object to Dr.
Zoltan’s testimony, the specific objections Plaintiffs plan to raise, if any, and the grounds
supporting those objections.
IT IS ORDERED that, in the event Plaintiffs plan to object to Dr. Zoltan,
Defendant AIU shall, by Thursday, February 26, 2026, file a response—limited to 5
pages—addressing Plaintiffs’ objections.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-01641-JAT Document 170 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 2