Plaintiff Tabria Montgomery’s father, Michael Montgomery sustained fatal injuries while operating a Bobst Mastercut 145 PER 2.0 Die-Cutter machine. She asserted claims individually on behalf of herself and her father’s estate against Defendant Bobst Group North America, Inc. (“Bobst NA”) for strict products liability, negligence, wrongful death, and survival.
Bobst NA filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Wayne Ross, M.D., P.C.
Pathology Expert Witness
Wayne Kenneth Ross, M.D., P.C. is board-certified by both the National Board of Medical Examiners and the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and Forensic Pathology. He maintains current medical licensure in
Pennsylvania and has practiced continuously as a forensic pathologist for over three decades.
Throughout his career, he has conducted thousands of autopsies and
death investigations involving traumatic injuries, gunshot wounds, blunt force trauma, and other violent deaths where assessing consciousness and pain perception at the time of injury is critical.
Discussion by the Court
A. Reliability
Bobst NA maintained that Ross used unreliable methods to reach his conclusion that Montgomery experienced sixty to ninety seconds of pain and suffering. The Court disagreed.
Bobst NA sought to exclude Ross’ opinion based on its argument that Ross did not examine scientific literature as required, and instead cherry-picked studies to support his causal connections. It focuses its criticism of Ross’ report on its references to “studies pertaining to strangulation and suffocation events in children, examinations of hangings, and studies detailing the areas of the brain associated with fear response.” Bobst NA explained that Ross did not address “either in his report or his deposition . . . why he believed that studies focusing on children and strangulation were more appropriate in his analysis than studies of adults and traumatic compression asphyxia injuries.”
While it is a close call, upon review, Ross’ opinion is not based only on “subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” While Bobst NA may disagree with the methods he used to reach his conclusions—formulating a hypothesis, analyzing available evidence and literature, and applying the principles of neuropathology—the methods used are enough to provide “good grounds” for his opinions under Rule 702.
B. Fit
Bobst NA also contended that Ross’ opinions did not “fit” the facts of this case, arguing that they “will not assist a jury” and “would only serve to cause confusion and misunderstanding.”
Plaintiff has shown that Ross’ opinions fit the case because they have a nexus to and will assist the jury with the questions that jurors will be required to consider when determining whether Plaintiff can recover for survival.
Held
The Court denied Bobst NA’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Wayne Ross, M.D., P.C.
Key Takeaway
When determining whether to admit expert testimony or not, the test “is not whether a particular scientific opinion has the best foundation or whether it is demonstrably correct.” Any gap between Ross’ opinion and the information underlying it must be “extreme” and “clear” for it to be excluded as unreliable.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Biomechanics Expert Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Death
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Montgomery V. Bobst Mex SA |
| Docket Number: | 2:24cv367 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern |
| Order Date: | April 30, 2026 |
Leave a Reply