This case involves a workplace accident that occurred on July 13, 2023, while Plaintiff Jason Flores (“Plaintiff”) was working at ACS Manufacturing, Inc. (“ACS”) with a press brake machine (“Subject Press Brake”) manufactured by Accurpress.
Plaintiff’s left hand was severely injured when the ram on the Subject Press Brake came down on his hand after he reached into the machine’s point of operation to retrieve a piece of debris.
Plaintiff has brought a strict product liability claim alleging a marketing defect and a negligence claim alleging that Accurpress failed to exercise reasonable care in warning operators.
Accurpress America, Inc. raised several arguments for excluding the opinions of Plaintiff’s economist, Lisa McGuff and prosthetics expert, Chris Lake.
Economics Expert Witness
Lisa McGuff has over 20 years of experience in economics and decision analysis. McGuff specializes in litigation and policy support for individuals, government, and the private sector. Her experience includes valuation and damages analysis, pricing, forecasting, royalties, and statistical analysis across a range of industries including energy, employment, real estate, and franchises.
Prosthetics Expert Witness
Chris Lake, L/CPO, FAAOP(D) is a Licensed and Certified Prosthetist Orthotist. Lake is a Fellow with Distinction of the American Academy of Orthotics and Prosthetics.
Lake graduated from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Prosthetics and Orthotics program in 1995. He completed a Prosthetic Residency (1996) at Southern Illinois University and an Orthotic Residency (1997) at the University of Oklahoma.
Lake has specialized in upper-limb prosthetics since 1997.
Discussion by the Court
1. McGuff Daubert
First, Accurpress argued that McGuff’s earning capacity analysis should be excluded under Daubert because she allegedly failed to calculate damages as a measure of Plaintiff’s future earning potential subtracted from his past potential. Second, Accurpress complained that these same capacity opinions are improper because McGuff assumed he would be employed as a “steel worker” until the age of sixty-seven, a job in which he had his highest earnings, and which he left before the time of his accident. Third, Accurpress argued that McGuff’s analysis of household labor should be excluded because she allegedly does not account for Plaintiff’s post-injury capability to perform household labor. Fourth, Accurpress argued that McGuff’s earning capacity and household labor analyses should be excluded under Rule 403 because such analyses will be “confusing and misleading” without comparison to Plaintiff’s post-injury abilities.
As the Court explained during the hearing, loss of earning capacity is different from lost wages, and, while it is helpful to compare after-injury earnings, that is not required here. Plaintiff counsel also persuasively raised during the hearing that there will be evidence that his current position is as a sheltered employee, which could end prematurely and may not properly reflect his future earnings. Moreover, McGuff’s calculations represented familiar calculations within the purview of an economist based on actuarial data that is typical in a tort case such as this one.
Therefore, the Court found that McGuff’s earning capacity and household labor opinions are sufficiently relevant and reliable to survive Daubert.
2. Lake Daubert
First, Accurpress argued that Lake’s opinion that Plaintiff needed prosthetics is unreliable because he did not consult “treating physicians” or conduct “functional capacity exams.” Second, Accurpress complained that Lake’s opinions on the maintenance costs (ranging from 10-20% of the cost of the prosthesis) of the three he recommends are based solely on his experience and are inconsistent with alleged normative industry data (reflecting 3%). During the hearing, Accurpress’ counsel raised an additional argument that Lake’s opinions on the prosthesis are unreliable because Plaintiff has not had an amputation yet in the two-and-a-half years since his accident, which is a prerequisite to fitting a prosthesis.
While Accurpress raised a slew of additional arguments, it provided no basis for such arguments grounded in Lake’s opinions or the facts. As a result, the Court found that Lake’s prosthetics opinions are sufficiently reliable.
Held
The Court denied Accurpress’ motions to exclude the opinions of Lisa McGuff and Chris Lake.
Key Takeaway
For expert testimony on topics that lack exactness, courts should consider factors such as the expert’s professional experience. Rule 702 does not prohibit an expert from reaching an opinion based on the expert’s experience and a witness’ experience can provide a reliable basis.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Flores V. Capital Machine Technologies, Inc. |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv81 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Texas Eastern |
| Order Date: | March 16, 2026 |
Leave a Reply