Mark McCown was working as a locomotive engineer for Defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company at the Bulls Gap, Tennessee Rail Yard. McCown was standing on the ballast slope next to the track when the rock he was standing on gave way and McCown fell onto his backside. He immediately experienced pain upon his fall and he ultimately developed a condition called Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (“CRPS”) due to the fall. McCown filed this suit against Norfolk Southern pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) asserting that his fall and subsequent injury was due, at least in part, to Norfolk’s negligence. While the parties do not dispute that a causal relationship exists between McCown’s fall and his CRPS diagnosis, they do dispute whether any negligent act or omission by Defendant contributed to McCowns fall.
Plaintiff sought compensation for the costs of future medical care and retained Christopher R. Sellars, DO, CLCP “to create a life care plan that assesses his future care needs and the costs associated with that care.”
Norfolk Southern filed a motion to exclude Sellars as an expert, asserting that he is unqualified to render the opinions in his report, his methodology is unreliable, and his conclusions are not properly supported. In the alternative, Norfolk Southern requested that if Sellars is permitted to testify his testimony be limited to treatment that has been ordered by “Plaintiff’s qualified treaters or recommended by qualified specialists” such as Defendant’s own experts.
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Expert Witness
Christopher Robert Sellars, DO, CLCP is both a doctor who is board-certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, also known as physiatry, and a Certified Life Care Planner. Sellars has been practicing medicine since 2007 and is also a publisher and presenter in the areas of physiatry, sports medicine, and pain medicine.
Discussion by the Court
a. Qualification
Defendant did not dispute that Sellars is a qualified medical doctor in general but argued that his lack of specific experience with CRPS renders him unqualified to opine regarding Plaintiff’s injury and future medical needs. The breadth of Sellars’ medical practice and experience is rather wide, and although he does not specialize in neurology or CRPS he did have significant experience related to pain medicine and some experience with CRPS cases. Additionally, Sellars conducted a fairly exhaustive review of Plaintiff’s medical records and considered both Plaintiff’s current treatment and recommendations for future treatment in forming his opinions.
Given that CRPS is a chronic pain condition and that he relied upon the information in Plaintiff’s medical records supplied by other medical experts, the Court held that Sellars’ practice and experience is sufficiently related to the diagnosis and treatment of injuries in order to qualify him to render opinions and recommendations related to Plaintiff’s long-term care.
b. Reliability
In attacking the reliability of Sellar’s report, Defendant vehemently asserted that Sellars is not qualified to render opinions regarding Plaintiff’s long-term care due to his lack of specialized knowledge of CRPS. As such, Defendant characterized Sellars’ testimony as pure speculation. Defendant also took issue with the fact that Sellars did not consult with any medical specialists or Plaintiff’s treating physicians before preparing his initial report.
As an initial matter, the Court noted that while Defendant asserted that Sellars’ methodology is flawed, causing his opinions to be unreliable, much of Defendant’s reliability argument rehashes what Defendant perceives are Sellars’ insufficient qualifications. As the Court has already addressed Sellars’ qualifications in the previous section, it will not do so again here. The Court is satisfied that Sellars has provided an adequate factual basis for his conclusions.
Having determined that Sellars’ testimony is not unreliable as a whole, the Court turned to Defendant’s request that Sellars’ testimony be limited. In asking the Court to limit Sellars’ testimony, Defendant essentially asked the Court to limit Sellars’ admissible recommendations regarding Plaintiff’s future care needs to those that Defendant’s own experts have recommended. The the Court cannot, and will not, do so.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s life care plan opinion witness Christopher Sellars, DO, CLCP.
Key Takeaway
While CRPS treatment is not a focal point of Sellars’ practice, Sellars is qualified to treat a wide range of conditions that cause longterm pain and functional impairment, including CRPS.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | McCown V. Norfolk Southern Railway Company |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv63 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Tennessee Eastern |
| Order Date: | April 06, 2026 |
Leave a Reply