On November 6, 2022, the Plaintiff, Jean Joyce Lejeune, was driving a 2021 Toyota Camry westbound on I-10. The Plaintiff alleged that while she was traveling, an 18-wheeler switched lanes and collided with her vehicle. The parties disputed which vehicle deviated from its respective lane. The Defendant, Moses Nganga Rugu, was the driver of the 18-wheeler. Rivatex Transport, Inc. owned the truck, and American was the insurer.
Defendant American hired Richard V. Baratta and intended to present him as an expert in biomedical and/or biomechanical engineering to testify at trial. The Plaintiff asserted that Baratta’s opinion was “bought and paid for” and challenged the methodology underlying his conclusions. Additionally, the Plaintiff argued that Baratta was not qualified to render biomechanical or biomedical opinions and that his opinions were not based on sufficient facts or data.
Biomechanical Engineering Expert Witness
Richard V. Baratta is a registered professional engineer licensed in Texas as a mechanical engineer, and biomedical specialist. He is also a licensed professional engineer in Florida, Louisiana, Illinois, Alabama, New York, Indiana, Georgia, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Mississippi.
He has been qualified as an expert in biomechanics and accident reconstruction over sixty times, including in the Western and Southern Districts of Texas. Baratta earned three degrees in Biomedical Engineering from Tulane University, including a masters’ degree and a doctorate degree.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff initially claimed injuries at the scene, went to the emergency room, and was released that same night. Plaintiff sought treatment eleven days later and is seeking over $1.8 million in future medical expenses. Defendant challenged the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Defendant has retained Baratta to address what forces and mechanisms might have been at play, or were non-existent, with respect to the incident. Plaintiff argued that Baratta is not qualified because of his methodologies that formed his opinions. Plaintiff did not appear to challenge Baratta as an expert biochemical engineer.
Plaintiff’s Position
Plaintiff challenged Baratta’s review of the photographs, and argued that Baratta is not an expert in interpretation of photographs. This argument is nonsensical to the Court. Experts commonly review photographs to form opinions.
She also complained that Baratta relied on a Uniform Vehicle Traffic Crash Report, Autostats data, Plaintiff’s deposition relative medical summary, but did not appear to challenge the use of this information. Plaintiff complained that Baratta did not rely on the estimate of the actual body-shop mechanic but relied on another repair estimate and challenges whether the author of that estimate was qualified.
Plaintiff specifically challenged Baratta’s opinions because he did not rely on statements made by Trooper Matthew Gaspard in his deposition, or statements made by Defendant, Rugu. Also, Plaintiff challenged Baratta’s methodology because he did not inspect the accident scene, take measurements, determine the applicable “G-forces” involved in the accident, take any “delta-v” presented, render mathematical computations, measure crush damage, render or account for any methodology supporting his opinion, personally inspect the subject vehicles, determine Plaintiff’s actual levels, determine the angular approach of the alleged tortfeasor’s vehicle, weigh the vehicles involved, determine the speed or impact speed, conduct any tests to determine reliability, determine crush profiles, conduct or perform methodology to the facts, outline any of the principles of engineering to the facts, indicate that his opinions have been subject to peer review, and/or indicate whether his “methodology” is capable of being repeated.
Defendant’s Position
Defendant remarked that Baratta’s report indicated that he relied on and considered the Uniform Crash report, body camera footage, relevant statements made to the investigating officer, Plaintiff’s and the Officer’s depositions, damage photographs, an inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle, statistical data of Plaintiff’s vehicle, an EDR report for Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Vehicle Control History report for Plaintiff’s vehicle, evaluation of that data through sophisticated and industry accepted crash analysis programs, and Plaintiff’s medical records.
Applying the principles of crash analysis to the facts of this case, and basing his opinion on industry-approved, peer-reviewed, and testable methods, Defendant argued that a review of the relevant and accurate data will assist the trier of fact.
Analysis
The Court reviewed Baratta’s report and considered Plaintiff’s complaints and found that they were unfounded, lacked specificity and authoritative support, and some were falsely presented to the Court. Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint tends to bear on the weight of Baratta’s opinion rather than its admissibility. Furthermore, Plaintiff will be able to cross-examine Baratta as to his opinions and how he arrived at them at the trial of this matter.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Richard Baratta.
Key Takeaway:
The trial court has broad latitude in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, and the Court’s role as gatekeeper “does not replace the traditional adversary system and the place of the jury within the system.” Instead, vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Lejeune V. American Inter-Fidelity Exchange Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv1364 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division |
| Order Date: | January 29, 2025 |
Leave a Reply