This is a case under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) to recover damages for personal injuries Plaintiff Rachael Snider alleged that she sustained during the scope of her employment working as a conductor for the Defendant railroad.
Union Pacific has offered the testimony of Dr. Jeffrey P. Broker. Snider sought to exclude Broker’s testimony on the basis that he is unqualified and utilized an unreliable methodology.
Biomechanics Expert Witness
Dr. Jeffrey Palmer Broker holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles in Biomechanics and Motor Control. He is an associate professor of biomechanics at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, the owner of the consulting firm Echelon Biomechanics, and an advisor in sport biomechanics to the United States Olympic Committee.
He has published dozens of articles, books, chapters, and review articles, and testified as an expert witness in other FELA cases.
Discussion by the Court
A. Qualifications
The Court found that Broker is qualified to provide his biomechanical analysis. He has a Ph.D. in biomechanics and motor control and has extensive experience, including in publishing and testifying, on topics in that field. However, to the extent Broker attempts to offer expert testimony on medical topics, like the nature of Snider’s preexisting back injury and its likely role in her current pain, he is unqualified to do so.
He has no medical expertise and may only opine on matters relating to biomechanics. Likewise, Broker is not qualified to opine on Snider’s credibility, such as implying she is exaggerating her symptoms or misrepresenting when they began.
Lastly, Union Pacific agreed that Broker cannot opine on or analyze Union Pacific’s internal rules, such as regarding handholds on stairs. The Court agreed that Broker is not qualified as an expert in railroad rule interpretation and may discuss Union Pacific’s rules only as necessary to provide context to the biomechanical aspects of his analysis.
B. Reliability
Snider next argued that Broker’s opinions are unreliable because he based them on inaccurate photographs of the stairs in question, he did not conduct any biomechanical testing, and his method is not scientific.
Snider’s critiques of Broker’s analysis are well-taken. Importantly, Broker himself admitted that in two of his three reports, he relied on inaccurate photographic depictions of the stairs in question that showed significantly more anti-slip material on the steps than existed at the time of the accident. However, he claimed that this error did not change his ultimate conclusion that Snider was responsible for the fall due to overstepping, not due to slipping on the step regardless of how much anti-slip material was worn away. Ultimately, Broker’s mistaken reliance on inaccurate photographs as well as Snider’s other critiques about the lack of hands-on testing Broker performed go to credibility, not admissibility.
Broker adequately explained the scientific basis for his methods as being rooted in biomechanics such that the Court is convinced he employed a sufficiently reliable methodology.
Snider will be free to criticize his methods and explore his purported mistakes on cross-examination, and her own expert will be able to explain why he believes the additional testing he conducted resulted in a better analysis that Broker’s. The Court declined to exclude Broker’s testimony in its entirety.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Jeffrey Broker.
Key Takeaway
When making the reliability inquiry, the Court should focus on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate. However, conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another. Trained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Snider V. Union Pacific Railroad Company |
| Docket Number: | 8:24cv356 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Nebraska |
| Order Date: | July 10, 2026 |
Leave a Reply