This case stems from a vehicle collision that happened in July 2022 in Gallup, New Mexico.
The Plaintiff, Jimmy Woodall claimed the crash caused severe and disabling injuries, including physical and emotional pain, permanent impairment, and reduced enjoyment of life. He sought compensation for medical costs, lost wages, and long-term care.
Woodall retained an expert, Mr. Justin Blok, MBA, CFE, CLP, to provide an opinion regarding Woodall’s lost earning potential, the present value of his life care plan, and other pecuniary matters. Blok relied on Todd Capielano‘s life care plan in determining Woodall’s alternative earnings and damages. Capielano, in turn, relied on the opinions of Woodall’s treating physicians, to form his own assessment of the costs Woodall was likely to face. Defendants challenged Blok’s qualifications, reasoning, and methodology, as well as his reliance on the opinions of Woodall’s treating physicians vis a vis Capielano’s life care plan.
Economic Damages Expert Witness
Justin Blok is a Certified Licensing Professional and Certified Fraud Examiner. He serves as a Partner at Whitley Penn LLP. He is also a Managing Director in its Forensic, Litigation & Valuation Services practice.
Blok specializes in economic, accounting, valuation, and strategy issues related to intellectual property, complex commercial disputes, and general business transactions. He has testified in private arbitration, Federal and State Courts.
Blok is consistently named to the IAM Patent 1000 list of top patent experts. He has lectured on damages topics at several universities. These include the University of Houston Law Center, Baylor University School of Law, and South Texas College of Law.
Discussion by the Court
Qualifications
Blok has an undergraduate degree in risk management and finance, a master’s degree in business administration, and a master’s degree in accounting—all financial and business-related credentials—and he has been called as an expert to discuss financial matters.
While Defendants argued that Blok is not a physician and is not qualified to diagnose Woodall’s conditions, the Court held that Blok will not opine on whether Woodall can work, nor will he opine on the causation of Woodall’s injuries. He therefore does not need to have a medical background. To the extent his valuations may rely on medical opinions regarding the work Woodall is capable of doing, such reliance is appropriate and typical for economists.
Methodology
The Defendants claimed that Blok’s projections were flawed because they included the full financial ramifications of Woodall’s medical conditions without accounting for the fact that Defendants can be held liable only for the portion attributable to the vehicle collision.
The Court disagreed. It explained that these kinds of critiques go to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. Questions about the assumptions underlying an expert’s economic projections are best addressed through cross-examination, not exclusion.
As for the concern about jury confusion, the Court noted that jurors would already be tasked with deciding how much of the Plaintiff’s current condition was caused by the collision. That same reasoning would naturally extend to financial damages.
Finally, the Court emphasized that if Blok performed his calculations assuming a certain fraction of the expenses were attributable to Defendants, he might have overstepped his role and strayed into medical territory. By presenting neutral calculations and leaving the apportionment to the jury, Blok stayed within proper bounds. The Court concluded that the Defendants could challenge his assumptions during cross-examination and denied the motion to exclude his testimony.
Held
The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Justin Blok.
Key Takeaway:
The alleged shortcomings in the underlying medical opinions used to create the life care plan and, in turn, the economic projections by Blok are properly addressed on cross-examination, not by excluding Block as an expert entirely.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Life Care Planning Expert’s Testimony on Future Medical Care Needs Admitted
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Woodall v. W. Express, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv862 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the District of New Mexico |
| Order Date: | April 25, 2025 |
Leave a Reply