William Harrison Sims was injured when his BMW’s airbag deployed improperly, sending shrapnel into his face. He sued BMW, alleging negligence and strict liability. To prove the extent of his injuries and future medical needs, Sims presented expert testimony from Dr. Craig Lichtblau, a board-certified physician specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation and brain injury medicine.
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Craig Lichtblau is board certified in physical medicine & rehabilitation and board certified in brain injury medicine through the American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has a robust clinical practice, maintains staff privileges at five hospitals, and has impressive credentials in both leadership and academic roles.
Discussion by the Court
The Defendants launched two main challenges, both substantive and procedural, aiming to exclude Lichtblau’s crucial evidence:
Substantive Challenge:
BMW argued Lichtblau’s report merely “parroted” the opinions of other experts, particularly regarding future medical needs. They pointed to a chart in his report that referenced other doctors’ recommendations. Their argument was that Lichtblau was simply compiling and repeating the opinions of these other experts, rather than providing his own independent medical assessment.
Plaintiff emphasized that life care planners, like Lichtblau, routinely rely on physicians’ recommendations to project future medical needs. Excluding such reliance would make the expert’s opinion unreliable.
They highlighted that Lichtblau’s report was based on a comprehensive rehabilitation evaluation, including physical examinations, medical record reviews, and detailed analyses, demonstrating independent judgment.
The Court found BMW’s arguments underdeveloped and lacking in relevant legal support. It acknowledged that experts in this field legitimately rely on other medical professionals. The Court reviewed the extensive work done by Lichtblau and determined that his opinions were well grounded, and not simply parroted.
Procedural Challenge:
BMW also objected to Lichtblau’s testimony on the grounds that he failed to appear for a scheduled deposition. This objection was a procedural one, arguing that the expert had not cooperated with the discovery process, potentially prejudicing the defense’s ability to prepare its case.
Sims’ team responded that the scheduled deposition was set after the discovery deadline. They pointed out that BMW had not made any attempt to compel the deposition before the deadline. They argued that BMW was attempting to use a procedural technicality to exclude valid expert testimony.
The Court emphasized that BMW failed to adhere to procedural rules by scheduling a deposition after the discovery deadline and not seeking to compel the deposition earlier.
The Court stated that they would not allow the Defendant to seek sanctions for a deposition that they scheduled outside of the discovery window.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lichtblau or, in the alternative, for sanctions regarding Plaintiff’s failure to present Lichtblau for deposition.
Key Takeaways:
- Experts, particularly in fields like life care planning, are often allowed to rely on the opinions and findings of other experts (like treating physicians) as a foundation for their own analyses.
- Parties must adhere to procedural rules, such as discovery deadlines, when seeking to challenge expert testimony. Failure to follow these rules can result in the Court rejecting objections.
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite His Failure to Calculate G-Force
Neurology Expert Witness’ Injury Causation Testimony Admitted
Neuropsychology Expert Witness is Qualified to Offer Opinions on Causation
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Sims V. Bmw Of North America LLC |
| Docket Number: | 6:22cv1685 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Florida Middle |
| Order Date: | March 5, 2025 |
Leave a Reply