Plaintiff Rickie Russell, Jr. (“Russell) alleged that, on August 13, 2021, Terry Delmer Prater (“Prater”) crashed an 18-wheeler truck into Russell’s roadside work crew Russell claimed he was pinned between two vehicles and suffered serious injuries as a result of that motor vehicle collision. Russell brought suit against Defendants Prater and Big V Feeds, Inc. for the injuries he sustained.
As part of their defense, Defendants retained Vishal Patel, M.D. to offer expert testimony. Russell filed a motion to exclude Dr. Patel’s testimony because: 1) Patel lacks proper qualifications as an expert; and 2) his methodology is unreliable.
Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness
Vishal Patel has been board certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery since 2015, a Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons since 2019, and an attending spine surgeon for over ten years. Patel’s medical practice is devoted to orthopedic surgery, and he maintains a full, unrestricted license to practice medicine.
Discussion by the Court
Patel has sufficient qualifications to serve as an expert
First, Russell argued that Patel lacked the requisite qualifications to serve as an expert in the present case because he “has never physically examined Russell, listened to his complaints, and would not even recognize Russell if he was standing across the hall from him.”
Russell seemed to contend that because Patel did not treat Russell, Patel is not qualified to serve as a retained expert physician. However, that cannot be the case. To hold otherwise would be to exclude all retained expert physicians.
After reviewing Patel’s curriculum vitae, the Court was satisfied with his education, training and experience to qualify him to offer his opinion on Russell’s alleged personal orthopedic injuries and the reasonableness and necessity of Russell’s medical treatment.
Patel’s methodology is reliable
After reviewing Patel’s expert report, the Court found that his methodology is reliable.
The Court held that Patel identified the medical records for Russell that he reviewed and then summarized those records in detail in his report. Thereafter, he applied his education, training, experience, and knowledge of the medical facts within the medical records to reach his opinions regarding Russell’s personal orthopedic injuries and necessity of medical treatment in reasonable medical probability. Therefore, Patel has sufficiently described his methodology and has adequately supported his opinions such that his methodology is reliable.
Additionally, Russell argued that Patel’s methodology was not reliable because “[a] diagnosis typically involves a physician physically examining a patient, to which there is no argument that Patel did not examine Russell.” The Court held that a retained expert physician’s role is to “examine a patient’s medical files and reach a conclusion about the diagnosis.”
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Vishal Patel.
Key Takeaway:
Russell argued that Patel lacked the requisite qualifications to serve as an expert in the present case because he “has never physically examined Russell, listened to his complaints, and would not even recognize Russell if he was standing across the hall from him.” The Court held that a retained expert physician’s role is to “examine a patient’s medical files and reach a conclusion about the diagnosis.”
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: Neurology Expert Witness’ Opinions About the Potential Presence of a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Admitted
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Russell, Jr. V. Big V Feeds, Inc. Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 4:23cv622 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Texas Eastern |
| Order Date: | August 16, 2024 |
Leave a Reply