Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

  • Digital Forensics Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Driver Behavior

    Digital Forensics Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Driver Behavior

    This litigation arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred during the early morning hours of May 10, 2023, on Interstate 20 in Bienville Parish, Louisiana. Ja’Vel Coleman alleged that she sustained injuries when her vehicle struck the rear of a tractor-trailer operated by Saint Fleur.

    According to Defendants, Saint Fleur experienced mechanical issues with his tractor-trailer and pulled onto the shoulder of Interstate 20 prior to the collision.

    During discovery, Defendants retained Dr. Douglas C. Brown and Josh Lorencz.

    Brown examined Coleman on January 15, 2026, and subsequently issued an expert report setting forth his findings and opinions while Lorencz reviewed AT&T Call Detail Records and identified calls and text messages associated with the phone number, the times of those communications, and the cell towers used during those communications.

    Coleman sought to exclude, or alternatively limit, the testimony of Dr. Douglas C. Brown and Josh Lorencz under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Douglas Coleman Brown has been in private practice in North Louisiana since 1977 and is certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and the American Board of Independent Medical Examiners. He also is a member of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society.

    Want to know more about the challenges Douglas Brown has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Digital Forensics Expert Witness

    Josh Lorencz possesses substantial training and experience in the field of cell phone forensics. He spent approximately sixteen years with the Simi Valley Police Department working as a detective and police officer and then subsequently worked in digital forensics for Envista Forensics before joining Rimkus.

    Lorencz has several certifications in digital forensics and has performed numerous digital analyses of this kind. 

    Discover more cases with Josh Lorencz as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Douglas Brown

    a. Future Medical Costs

    Coleman first sought exclusion of Brown’s opinions regarding future medical costs. In their opposition, Defendants expressly stipulate that Brown will not testify or offer opinions regarding Coleman’s future medical costs and represent that they have retained a separate expert to address those issues.

    b. Coleman’s Neurological Condition and the October 2023 EMG

    Coleman challenged Brown’s opinions regarding Coleman’s neurological condition, arguing that Brown failed to adequately account for an October 2023 EMG report showing radial neuropathy and performed an insufficient neurological examination.

    The Court found that these criticisms go to the weight of Brown’s testimony rather than its admissibility. Brown acknowledged the EMG findings during his deposition and provided an explanation for why the study did not alter his clinical conclusions during his January 2026 examination.

    Coleman has not demonstrated that Brown employed an unreliable methodology such that exclusion is warranted under Rule 702. Any alleged shortcomings in Brown’s review of the medical records, interpretation of the EMG, or physical examination may be explored through cross-examination.

    c. Return to Work

    Coleman also sought exclusion of Brown’s opinion that Coleman is capable of returning to her pre-injury sedentary occupation to the extent that opinion relies upon his neurological findings. Because the Court found that Coleman has not established a basis for excluding Brown’s neurological opinions, the Court likewise declined to exclude his opinions regarding Coleman’s functional capacity and work restrictions.

    d. Future Treatment

    Coleman next sought to exclude Brown’s opinions regarding future surgical treatment and the appropriate surgical approach to Coleman’s anticipated hip arthroplasty. Coleman emphasizes that Brown no longer performs orthopedic surgery and testified regarding certain physical limitations.

    The Court found no basis for exclusion of this testimony. The record reflects that Brown is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who practiced orthopedic surgery for decades, performed the type of procedures at issue during his career, remains licensed, and continues to practice medicine and perform independent medical examinations.

    Any reduction in his surgical practice or disagreement regarding the appropriate surgical approach affects the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility.

    II. Josh Lorencz

    a. Qualifications

    Based upon Lorencz’s education, training, and professional experience, the Court found that he possesses sufficient qualifications to testify regarding cell site location analysis. Accordingly, the Court found that Lorencz is qualified to offer expert testimony in this matter.

    b. Reliability of Methodology

    Coleman argued that Lorencz’s opinions should be excluded because his CellHawk training occurred in 2016, he has not attended refresher courses since that time, and he cannot explain the software’s internal processes.

    Notably, Coleman did not challenge the general reliability of cell site location analysis itself. Instead, Coleman argued that Lorencz lacked sufficient familiarity with the CellHawk software because he has not received recent training and cannot explain the software’s internal processes.

    Here, the record reflected that Lorencz has extensive experience utilizing CellHawk and performing cell site location analyses. The fact that he cannot explain the software’s back-end functionality did not render his methodology unreliable.

    Any alleged deficiencies in Lorencz’s familiarity with CellHawk’s internal workings can be scrutinized on cross-examination and affect the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility. Accordingly, the Court rejected Coleman’s argument that Lorencz’s opinions should be excluded based upon his training history or inability to explain CellHawk’s internal processes.

    Coleman also argued that Lorencz failed to reliably apply his methodology because he did not independently verify cell tower locations. During his deposition, Lorencz acknowledged that he has independently verified tower locations in prior matters but did not do so in this case. Instead, he relied upon the AT&T records and CellHawk’s mapping functions.

    The Court found that this criticism goes to the weight of Lorencz’s testimony rather than its admissibility.

    Although Lorencz acknowledged that independent verification through tools like Google Earth may be used to ensure accuracy of the cell tower locations, Coleman has identified no authority finding that such verification is a prerequisite to admissibility under Rule 702.

    Likewise, the Court is aware of no authority suggesting that an expert’s failure to employ every available validation technique renders an otherwise reliable methodology inadmissible. The Court concluded that Lorencz’s decision not to independently verify the tower locations presents an issue appropriately explored through cross-examination.

    c. Scope of Permissible Testimony

    Lorencz was retained to analyze AT&T Call Detail Records associated with a particular telephone number. His report identifies calls and text messages, the timing of those communications, and the cell towers associated with those communications. The record further reflects that Lorencz reviewed the AT&T Call Detail Records and the Louisiana Uniform Crash Report but did not review GPS data, electronic logging device (“ELD”) data, or other location-specific information.

    Lorencz testified that cell site location analysis did not permit him to determine the precise GPS location of a device. Rather, he can only identify the tower and sector utilized during a communication.

    Thus, the fact that a communication utilized a specific tower only indicates that the device was within the serviceable range of that tower at that time; it does not establish the device’s precise location.

    Accordingly, Lorencz may testify regarding the contents of the AT&T Call Detail Records, the timing of the calls and text messages reflected therein, the cell towers and sectors associated with those communications, and the general principles underlying cell site location analysis. Such testimony may assist the jury in understanding the evidence.

    However, the Court finds that the methodology employed by Lorencz does not support testimony concerning the precise location of any vehicle or person, the precise time that Saint Fleur arrived at the accident location, the length of time that any vehicle remained at a particular location, or other conclusions that cannot be reliably derived from the Call Detail Records.

    Likewise, Lorencz may not offer opinions regarding user identity, driver behavior, distraction, causation, or matters beyond the scope of his report and expertise.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part Coleman’s Daubert motions to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Dr. Douglas Brown and Josh Lorencz.

    Key Takeaway

    Experts routinely rely upon specialized software tools without possessing detailed knowledge of the software’s source code or internal algorithms.

    However, Rule 702 requires not only that expert testimony be reliable, but also that it assist the trier of fact. Thus, even where an expert is qualified and employs a reliable methodology, the testimony must remain within the bounds of what that methodology can reasonably support.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Coleman v. Burlington Ins. Co.
    Docket Number: 5:24cv512
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: July 13, 2026
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Foot and Ankle Swelling

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Foot and Ankle Swelling

    On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff John Caton, then 77 years old, was crossing the street, when he was struck by a USPS postal truck. Plaintiff claimed injury to and future medical care needs for not just his right hip and cervical spine, but also for his right shoulder, right foot and ankle, right thumb, and spine. While the parties agreed that Plaintiff injured his hip in the collision and required treatment, the parties disputed which of his other body parts were injured due to the collision, as well as the appropriate course of treatment.

    Plaintiff submitted expert reports from two retained experts in this case: Dr. Piers Barry, an orthopedic surgeon who examined Plaintiff and his medical records; and Dr. Kelly S. Harvey, a life care planner who estimated medical costs. Barry submitted five expert reports in this case, dated: November 29, 2024; December 20, 2024; April 8, 2025; July 31, 2025; and September 16, 2025. The April 8, 2025 and July 31, 2025 reports contain his causation opinions. Harvey’s life care plan report estimated the cost of carrying out Dr. Barry’s treatment plan. 

    Defendant United States filed a motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiff’s experts.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Piers A. Barry is a board certified orthopedic surgeon with extensive clinical and hands on experience. He has published scientific journal articles and has given presentations on subjects such as arthroscopic treatment of knee, shoulder, and ankle, and hip injuries. Barry is a member of the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA).

    Discover more cases with Piers Barry as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Life Care Planning Expert Witness

    Kelly Sandy Harvey is a credentialed and certified Life Care Planner. She specializes in the treatment of complex orthopedic trauma, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, amputations, and burns.

    Want to know more about the challenges Kelly Harvey has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Barry’s Opinion

    Defendant sought to exclude certain expert testimony from Barry and Harvey for four reasons: 1) Barry’s causation opinions for Plaintiff’s foot, ankle, shoulder, and thumb injuries were unreliable; 2) Barry’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s hip care were unreliable; 3) Barry’s report, served on September 16, 2025, was untimely; and 4) Harvey’s opinions on the cost of Plaintiff’s injuries lacked foundation.

    i. Testimony that Plaintiff’s foot, ankle, shoulder or thumb were injured in the collision

    Defendant sought to exclude Barry’s testimony that Plaintiff’s foot, ankle, shoulder, and thumb were injured in the collision. Defendant argued that Barry did not provide a clear explanation as to why he believes the collision injured Plaintiff’s shoulder, foot, ankle, or thumb.

    a. Right foot and ankle

    Barry noted that Plaintiff felt significant pain in his right foot and ankle after regaining consciousness immediately following the collision. Furthermore, Barry’s report stated that Plaintiff later underwent a cardiovascular evaluation to rule out a cardiac cause for the persistent swelling, but he did not address what caused the swelling.

    While Plaintiff’s ankle and foot pain could be considered a symptom of the injuries sustained during the collision—Barry’s reports are silent on how the swelling was caused by the collision. Given the passage of time between the collision and the symptoms, the Court found that Barry’s reports did not explain how the injuries can be attributed to the collision and allowing him to testify regarding these injuries would only confuse the finder of fact.

    b. Shoulder and thumb

    Barry explained that Plaintiff saw Eric Stuffman, an orthopedic surgeon from July 25 to August 10, 2023 for ongoing right shoulder pain. Barry’s summary of Plaintiff’s medical records noted limited range of motion in his shoulders as early as October 7, 2022, which was only two days after the accident. The earliest mention of a thumb injury was December 11, 2024, when Plaintiff had an MRI.

    The Court noted that Barry did not explain how these injuries are related to the accident other than Plaintiff denying any prior injuries. That is not enough.

    ii. Testimony regarding future medical care needs for Plaintiff’s hip

    Second, Defendant contended that Barry’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s hip recovery needs are unreliable and will not assist the trier of fact, because Plaintiff underwent hip replacement surgery in January 2026, and Barry admitted at deposition that he had no basis of knowing whether Plaintiff required extended inpatient care or rehabilitation, as originally opined, or whether he was discharged home immediately.

    Plaintiff’s opposition did not meaningfully address this argument. Nonetheless, Defendant essentially sought to penalize Plaintiff for having surgery after expert reports were due. That is no reason to exclude testimony regarding the anticipated course of treatment and recovery. If anything, any divergence between Barry’s report and Plaintiff’s post-operative care needs would serve as grounds for impeachment, rather than exclusion.

    Accordingly, the Court declined to exclude Barry’s testimony on future medical care needs pertaining to Plaintiff’s hip.

    iii. Whether Barry’s report received on September 16, 2025 should be stricken as untimely

    Finally, Defendant filed a motion to strike Barry’s rebuttal report, served on September 16, 2025, as untimely. The deadline to serve rebuttal reports was August 27, 2025.

    In opposition, Plaintiff argued that the two-week delay was inconsequential, not prejudicial and was unintentional. Specifically, Plaintiff contended that the report was provided well in advance of any expert depositions and that defense counsel had the report for approximately four months prior to Barry’s deposition.

    Even with the two-week delay, Defendant had the rebuttal report several months before Barry’s deposition and before any other experts were deposed, which effectively rendered the delay harmless. Thus, exclusion would be a harsh sanction under the circumstances.

    B. Harvey’s Opinion

    Finally, Defendant argued that, to the extent that the Court excluded Barry’s opinions, it should also exclude any of Harvey’s cost analysis that relied on those excluded opinions.

    The Court agreed. Since Barry’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s right foot and ankle, shoulder, and thumb injuries were excluded, Harvey’s opinions regarding the cost of care for those injuries were also similarly excluded. Her other opinions, however, were not excluded.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to exclude certain testimony of Plaintiff’s experts.

    Key Takeaway

    The purpose of a ‘detailed and complete’ expert report is, in part, to minimize the expense of deposing experts, and to shorten direct examination and prevent an ambush at trial.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Caton V. United States
    Docket Number: 4:23cv5451
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
    Order Date: April 28, 2026
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on TMJ Injuries Admitted

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on TMJ Injuries Admitted

    This case concerns alleged personal injuries suffered by Misty Adkins in a motor vehicle accident on August 22, 2023.

    Adkins alleged that she was traveling southbound in Pike County, Kentucky, when Hacker pulled out in front of her, causing her to strike the rear of his vehicle. It is also alleged that Clemon Hacker was driving a truck on behalf of his employer, Gateway Tire Company, Inc., at the time of the accident and was acting within the scope of his employment.

    Rick Lyon‘s report thoroughly outlines Adkins’ medical records on which he relies in crafting his expert report. The Defendants filed a motion to strike Lyon’s testimony and also sought to exclude any evidence or medical expenses related to Adkins’s alleged temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ) injury, arguing that Lyon is not qualified to offer opinions relating to TMJ injuries because they are outside the scope of his expertise. 

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    John Richard Lyon (“Rick”), M.D., is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and specializes in general orthopedics. He brings over 30 years of experience in orthopedics and sports medicine and has performed medical-legal evaluations for over 10 years.

    Get the full story on challenges to John Richard Lyon’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    Motion to Strike Lyon’s Testimony

    Rule 26(a)(2) also mandates additional reporting requirements depending on the type of expert. Where the expert is “retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony,” as is the case with Lyon, the disclosure must include a written report containing facts or data considered by the witness in forming their opinion and exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them.

    Because Lyon’s March 25, 2025 evidentiary deposition was tantamount to his taking the stand live at trial, Adkins’ introduction of this itemization at the evidentiary deposition without having previously disclosed it was improper. And to the extent it was intended to supplement Lyon’s original report, it was untimely.

    Adkins argued that her untimely supplement was harmless. But this itemization document was a surprise to the Defendants, and since it was used to support Lyon’s trial deposition testimony which will be presented at trial, there is no genuine ability for that surprise to be cured. Moreover, her explanation for the failure to timely disclose this information was insufficient.

    Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike Lyon’s testimony, to the extent it concerns Adkins’ damages based on the untimely disclosure of her medical bills.

    Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Medical Expenses Relating to TMJ Injury

    Lyon is not qualified to offer opinions relating to TMJ injuries because they are outside the scope of his expertise.

    Adkins argued that Lyon is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who has more than 30 years’ experience, and that he has treated “thousands of patients” during his career. Lyon often treats and diagnoses patients with conditions outside the scope of his specialty, makes referrals, and follows up with them about their overall health. He often performs IMEs as a retained medical expert, and in that role he is frequently asked to review medical records, perform examinations, author expert reports, and provide testimony outside the scope of his specialty.

    Moreover, Lyon testified that, while he does not usually treat TMJ, he has treated patients with TMJ in the past, made the diagnosis, and referred them out to other doctors who specialize in handling the disorder.

    Based on the foregoing, the Court found that Lyon is qualified to offer expert testimony on TMJ based on his knowledge, skill, and experience.

    Held

    • The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to strike the testimony of Dr. John Richard Lyon, to the extent it concerns Adkins’ damages based on the untimely disclosure of her medical bills.
    • The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of John Richard Lyon relating to Adkins’ alleged TMJ injury.

    Key Takeaway

    It is undisputed that TMJ injuries are outside the scope of Lyon’s practice. However, a witness can be qualified as an expert based on their “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

    Thus, where the proponent meets their burden, the Court has found that physicians or other medical professionals are qualified to offer expert testimony on subjects outside the scope of their practice based on their “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Adkins V. Hacker
    Docket Number: 6:26cv10
    Court Name: United States District Court, Kentucky Eastern
    Order Date: February 26, 2026
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Physical Injuries Excluded

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Physical Injuries Excluded

    The instant matter arises out of a power catamaran scenic and snorkel tour that Plaintiffs Candice Myhre and Norman Davidson, IV boarded on May 14, 2021 from Kikiaola Small Boat Harbor.

    As the vessel began to exit the harbor, it encountered large waves, and Myhre stated that she flew out of her seat, hit her face on the vessel’s railings, and slammed down onto metal seats. As a result, she was transported to Kauai Medical Clinic for medical care and received treatment for physical injuries to her face, knee, and lower leg.

    On June 24, 2025, Plaintiffs disclosed Dr. Derek S. Johnson, D.O. as “Plaintiffs’ medical expert who will testify, including but not limited, to Plaintiff Candice Myhre’s injuries and damages issues.”

    Defendants contended that Johnson’s disclosure was untimely because Plaintiffs failed to disclose him properly as a medical expert.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Derek S. Johnson, D.O. is a graduate of the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine Program at Midwestern University-Glendale Medical School and completed his Orthopaedic Surgery residency at Pinnacle Health System in Harrisburg, PA. He currently serves as the Department Chair of Orthopedic Surgery at Wilcox Medical Center.

    Get the full story on challenges to Derek Johnson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants argued that they would be plainly prejudiced should Johnson be permitted to testify as a retained expert or as a treating physician at trial because the trial is scheduled to commence in less than sixty days and the discovery deadline has expired.

    Plaintiffs, however, contended that Johnson was disclosed on June 24, 2025 as a non-treating medical expert, and his opinions were disclosed on October 9, 2025. There was no failure to identify Johnson as a retained non-treating physician, they argued, because they stated in the initial disclosure that “‘Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement and/or amend [their] disclosure as necessary and as additional information becomes available through discovery and other means.’” Plaintiffs argued that if there was a failure to disclose, that
    failure was merely harmless under Rule 37(c)(1).

    The key question is: does Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s written report requirement apply to Johnson’s disclosure as an expert witness? Johnson is not identified as a treating physician; the opinions expressed do not indicate that they were formed during Plaintiff’s treatment; and Plaintiffs state that he was not a treating physician for Myhre. Therefore, Rule 26(a)(2)(B) applies. Plaintiffs thus were required to disclose Johnson as an expert witness and provide an accompanying written report by the expert witness disclosure deadline of June 30, 2025.

    The expert report was not provided by that deadline and, to the extent that Plaintiffs contended that their submission of his report on October 9, 2025 was a supplemental disclosure, this contention fell short of the mark because of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s directive that the written report must accompany the expert witness disclosure.

    Analysis

    The Court concluded that the failure to disclose was not harmless and that lesser sanctions are not reasonably available.

    Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving harmlessness. Trial is scheduled to be held in two months and discovery has been completed. Johnson’s opinion report is not dated but the request for his opinions is dated February 21, 2025, which is seven months before it was disclosed to Defendants and four months before the expert witness disclosure deadline.

    A lesser sanction could be to require Plaintiffs to pay the costs and attorney’s fees to allow Defendants to take Johnson’s deposition. However, taking Johnson’s deposition and possibly retaining a defense medical expert with sufficient time to allow that expert to review medical records and Johnson’s testimony and having the defense expert prepare a report and have his or her deposition taken takes time; most likely four to six months, which is much more time than the two months before this matter is scheduled for trial.

    While Johnson’s testimony does bear upon Myhre’s claims of physical injuries (more specifically, the cause of her sepsis), there is no indication that her treating physicians are unable to testify regarding the nature and extent of her injuries for which she was treated and that they observed.

    Since Johnson’s opinion testimony has no bearing on liability issues, the Court cannot conclude that excluding Johnson will deal a fatal blow to Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court also cannot conclude that Plaintiffs had an excuse for the late disclosure, such as needing additional time for the expert disclosure, because they did not seek an extension of the deadline from the magistrate judge nor explain the reason for their failure to comply with the Rule 16 deadline.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motion to strike Derek Johnson, D.O. as an expert witness.

    Key Takeaway

    It should be noted that no explanation is offered as to why it took from February to October to obtain and disclose Johnson’s written opinion report. There is no indication that his report could not have been disclosed by the June 30, 2025 expert disclosure deadline.

    The Court concluded that the non-compliance was not harmless; that there are no lesser sanctions available given the short time before trial; and that the exclusion sanction is warranted and will not result in a fatal blow to Plaintiffs’ claim.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Myhre V. Marina LLC
    Docket Number: 1:24cv217
    Court Name: United States District Court, Hawaii
    Order Date: January 14, 2026
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Knee Injury Admitted

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Knee Injury Admitted

    Plaintiff Maria Marano slipped and fell while at a Sam’s Club store. She subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against Defendant Sam’s East, Inc., alleging that she sustained a meniscal tear in her knee as a result of the fall.

    Defendant disputes whether there is a causal connection between the fall and injury.

    Marano offered Dr. Thomas Parent, who surgically repaired her knee, as an expert witness. He testified that the fall caused Marano’s injury. Defendant filed a motion to exclude Parent under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Thomas Parent, M.D., is a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon & Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons with expertise in hand, wrist, shoulder & knee surgery. With over 25 years of experience, he specializes in regenerative medicine using biologics and stem cell therapy for tissue repair. Parent has a strong academic background with training from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Loma Linda University Medical Center. He is committed to providing personalized care and has a history of community involvement and academic contributions in orthopedic surgery.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Thomas Parent’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Parent came to his causation opinion after examining Marano, considering her medical history, reviewing MRIs, evaluating clinical symptoms, and ultimately performing surgery. This type of methodology is generally accepted for medical injuries.

    Although the Defendant criticized Parent for not performing a differential diagnosis to exclude alternative causes of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the Court was not persuaded. The Defendant failed to present evidence of any other incident that could have caused the injuries treated by Parent. Nor is there any reason to doubt Parent’s treatment was inadequate to rule out other causes.

    Defendant also claimed that Parent’s opinions are unreliable because (1) they are based solely on what Marano told him; (2) he did not review any medical records that predate the fall; and (3) he failed to rule out any alternative cause. These arguments likewise failed to persuade the Court.

    Parent’s opinions are not based solely on what Marano told him. He has a treatment history with Marano, performed the surgery, and reviewed the only prior medical records (an MRI from 2015) available when forming his opinions. He testified that he would have considered an alternative explanation for the injuries if such information had been presented, but it wasn’t.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Thomas Parent, M.D.

    Key Takeaways:

    • A physician’s causation opinions need only be “sufficiently related to the information disclosed during the course of Plaintiff’s treatment.”
    • A doctor usually may primarily base his opinion as to the cause of a Plaintiff’s injuries on his history where the Plaintiff has sustained a common injury in a way that it commonly occurs.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Marano V. Sam’s East, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
    Order Date: September 18, 2025
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Medical Negligence Excluded

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Medical Negligence Excluded

    Plaintiff Nicholas Price, a former Virginia inmate, filed this civil rights action against Defendant Kyle Smith, M.D. (“Dr. Smith”), alleging that Smith was
    deliberately indifferent to Price’s serious medical needs after he sustained significant knee injuries while playing basketball at Augusta Correctional Center (“ACC”).

    Smith filed a motion to exclude the medical opinions of Price’s expert witness, Dr. Michael J. Katz.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Michael Jesse Katz is board certified in Orthopedic Surgery. He has been a practicing physician for 40 years. He has treated thousands of patients with patellar tendon ruptures over the course of my career. Katz has served as an expert in many knee cases in the past.

    Want to know more about the challenges Michael Katz has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Smith filed a motion to exclude the medical opinions of Katz on two main grounds: (1) that Katz’s expert designation does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; and (2) that his medical opinions are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    1. Katz’s expert medical report fails to comply with the disclosure
    requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

    Katz’s expert report did not fully comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Although the report contains some of the necessary components, it omitted several critical elements mandated by the Rule and thus falls short of the required standard for expert disclosures.

    Katz stated his principal conclusion—that the delay in treatment for Price’s bilateral patellar tendon ruptures constituted a deviation from the standard of care and was the proximate cause of Price’s worsened condition. He further noted that such injuries require prompt surgical repair.

    While this constitutes a basic statement of opinion, the Court held that it is brief and conclusory, lacking meaningful detail or explanation. Courts within the Fourth Circuit have found conclusory findings insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i).

    While Katz asserted that the ACC’s delay in providing medical care fell below the standard of care, he did not define the standard, nor did he explain the factual or clinical basis for his opinion.

    Furthermore, Katz’s report failed to include a list of prior cases in which he has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the last four years, in violation of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(v).

    In sum, the Court held that Katz’s expert report failed to satisfy multiple subsections of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), including those related to the basis for his opinions, prior expert testimony, and compensation.

    2. Katz’s medical opinion is not admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702

    While Katz listed the records he reviewed, they consisted solely of Augusta Health records from March 13 to March 24, 2021—after the alleged delay in care had already occurred. He did not review any medical records from ACC, the facility where the delay allegedly took place, nor did he examine any documentation regarding the care provided by Smith, the sole remaining Defendant in the case. Additionally, he opined that the delay caused the injury to worsen, but did not identify how it worsened, or any facts or records upon which he bases this opinion. The last medical records he reviewed were Augusta Health’s discharge records, eight days after surgery—when Price was still wearing knee immobilizers. He did not review the condition of Price’s knee, or the treatment thereof, before arriving at Augusta Health, nor did he evaluate the rehabilitation records that occurred after his stay at Augusta Health.

    These omissions are critical. Katz’s conclusion—that the delay in treatment at ACC caused Price’s injury to worsen—depended upon knowing what care was provided, when, and by whom. Without having reviewed any records from ACC, the Court held that his opinion rests on an incomplete and selective factual basis.

    Moreover, Katz did not define what the standard of care is, did not identify how it was violated, and did not indicate what constitutes “prompt” treatment under the circumstances. Katz was asked to opine on a question rooted in negligence: whether the delay in treatment “fell below the minimum standard of care.” But this did not address the constitutional threshold of deliberate indifference and thus had no relevance to the central legal question in this case.

    Held

    The Court granted Smith’s motion to exclude the medical opinions of Price’s expert witness, Dr. Michael Katz.

    Key Takeaway:

    Katz’s report failed to satisfy any of the four foundational prongs of Rule 702. It is not based on sufficient facts or data, did not reflect or apply reliable principles or methods, and is not relevant to the legal claim of deliberate indifference.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Price V. White Et Al
    Docket Number: 5:23cv10
    Court Name: United States District Court, Virginia Western
    Order Date: September 17, 2025
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Venous Issues and Wound Care Admitted

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Venous Issues and Wound Care Admitted

    This case arises out of an accident in which Nolan Gorney slipped and fell at a Safeway store. Gorney designated Dr. Michael A. Steingart, an orthopedic surgeon, as an expert. Steingart conducted an independent medical examination and opined that the accident aggravated Gorney’s preexisting condition. He also stated that Gorney’s “vascular status had changed from this fall and in all medical probability caused progression of his clot or for the need of treatment.” Safeway filed a motion to exclude Steingart’s opinions.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Michael A. Steingart has a busy orthopedic practice for more than 24 years. He was trained in general orthopedic surgery and has specialized in back/spine issues and extremities for surgical and non-surgical orthopedics. Steingart has extensive training and experience in proper diagnosis and treatment of injuries and ailments of the musculoskeletal system.

    Want to know more about the challenges Michael A. Steingart has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Safeway argued that Steingart’s expert opinions must be excluded because (1) he did not review all of Gorney’s relevant medical records, so his opinions are not based on sufficient facts and data or a reliable methodology and (2) as an orthopedic surgeon, he is not qualified to opine on areas that touch on
    venous issues and wound care.

    Failure to Examine All Relevant Medical Records

    Steingart based his opinion on a review of Gorney’s medical records—one set of records contained 600 pages, his examination of Gorney, and Gorney’s oral medical history. The Court refused to exclude Steingart’s opinions on this ground.

    Safeway argued that, for his opinions to be reliable, Steingart was required to review the medical records from IYA Medical, LLC and from Gorney’s primary care physician, in addition to the records he already reviewed from Arizona Pain Doctors, Chandler Regional Medical Center, Arizona General Hospital, and MRI scans from SimonMed. However, Steingart was not required to do so.

    Rule 702 requires only that Steingart’s opinions be based on “sufficient”—not exhaustive—“facts and data.”

    Safeway also argued that Steingart’s opinions are unreliable because he relied on summaries of the medical records prepared by Safeway’s experts, Dr. Michael Domer and Dr. David Feuer, rather than on the records themselves.

    It was not per se improper for Steingart to consider Domer’s and Feuer’s summaries, especially with regard to Domer because Steingart testified that he has known Domer for years and that Domer prepares honest opinions.

    Finally, although Safeway took issue with Steingart’s reliance on Gorney’s self-reported medical history, this is not a proper basis to exclude Steingart’s opinions because the Court permitted Steingart to rely on Gorney’s oral medical history in forming his opinions.

    Qualification to Opine on Venous Issues and Wound Care

    Although Safeway is correct that a medical doctor’s qualification to opine in one area “does not mean he is qualified to testify on all other medical topics,” Steingart did not venture into territories in which he has no specialized knowledge or experience. Steingart has extensive experience in wound care because, for part of his career, wound management specialists did not exist, so orthopedic surgeons treated such injuries.

    That Steingart did not primarily or exclusively practice in wound care does not mean he cannot opine on it based on his years of experience.

    As for Steingart’s opinions that touch on venous issues, Steingart is sufficiently qualified to opine on the effect of Gorney’s fall on his body from an orthopedic surgeon’s perspective, even if that includes the fall’s effect on Gorney’s vascular system at large. An orthopedic surgeon specializes in “injuries and diseases of the musculoskeletal system,” including “the bones, joints, tendons, ligaments, and muscles.”

    Additionally, considering how intricately connected the human body’s systems are, it is not surprising that Steingart has knowledge about other parts of the body, including the vascular system, that are affected by or which themselves affect injuries to the systems in which he specializes.

    The Court held that Steingart is qualified to offer opinions on areas that touch on venous issues and wound care due to his knowledge and experience.

    Held

    The Court denied Safeway’s motion to exclude Dr. Michael Steingart’s opinions.

    Key Takeaway:

    An expert witness can review experimental, statistical, or other scientific data generated by others in the field in demonstrating that their opinion adheres to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work and are thus reliable.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Gorney V. Safeway Inc.
    Docket Number: 2:23cv1413
    Court Name: United States District Court, Arizona
    Order Date: September 08, 2025
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert Allowed to Testify Despite a Temporary Lapse in Board Certification

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Allowed to Testify Despite a Temporary Lapse in Board Certification

    This case concerns a personal injury. On July 5, 2021, Plaintiff Cline Cockburn was employed by AmSpec Services, LLC as a petrochemical inspector performing work for Marathon Petroleum Company, LP aboard in rem Defendant the M/V San Roberto, a vessel owned and operated by Defendant Buffalo Marine Service, Inc. (“Buffalo Marine”).

    At the time, the San Roberto was moored at a dock facility in Mt. Airy, Louisiana, that was owned by Apex Oil Company, Inc. Cockburn was injured while disembarking from the San Roberto when the gangway leading from the barge to the dock “gave way.” On July 5, 2022, Cockburn filed this suit against Apex, Buffalo Marine, and the San Roberto, in rem, and amended it on June 21, 2023, alleging negligence claims.

    In April 2022, nearly nine months after the accident, Cockburn began treatment with Dr. Alexis M. Waguespack, an orthopedic surgeon.

    Plaintiff Cline Cockburn filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior alleged acts of malpractice and credentialing records related to Waguespack while Defendants Buffalo Marine Service, Inc. and Apex filed a motion in limine to exclude Waguespack’s testimony.

    Both Buffalo Marine and Apex filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of lifecare planner Jordan Frankel.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Alexis Mayoral Waguespack has been performing orthopedic spinal surgery since 1998. She attended medical school at Louisiana State University School of Medicine, did her residency at LSU and completed a fellowship in spine surgery at the San Francisco Spine Institute in California.

    Discover more cases with Alexis Waguespack as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Vocational Rehabilitation Expert Witness

    Jordan Frankel earned his Master of Health Sciences in Rehabilitation Counseling degree from Louisiana State University Health and Sciences Center. Frankel is a Licensed Rehabilitation Counselor in the State of Louisiana, and has national certifications as a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor and a Certified Life Care Planner.

    He is a member of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals. Frankel has testified in federal court in the fields of Vocational Rehabilitation and Life Care Planning.

    Want to know more about the challenges Jordan Frankel has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Alexis Waguespack

    Buffalo Marine and Apex argued that Waguespack’s testimony should be excluded to the extent she may offer expert opinions on medical causation or necessity of treatment, or testify in any way as an expert, because, they say, she lacks the requisite expertise and her opinions are not reliable or based on sufficient facts or data.

    Buffalo Marine and Apex contended that Waguespack lacked expertise because she let her certification with the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery lapse from January 1, 2021, to January 15, 2023, during part of Cockburn’s treatment, which began in April 2022.

    They also argued that Waguespack’s opinion—that Cockburn’s cervical symptoms and two cervical surgeries were more likely than not caused by the July 2021 incident—is unreliable, because it rests on Cockburn’s self-reported pain nine months after the incident.

    Analysis

    Having weighed Waguespack’s qualifications, history of treating Cockburn, and her deposition testimony against the arguments presented, the Court found that she is qualified by education and experience to render opinions as to medical necessity and causation. The opinions are reliable, considering her long career as an orthopedic surgeon and history of treating Cockburn. While the temporary lapse in Waguespack’s board certification does not make her unqualified to render the proffered opinions, it does raise questions as to her credibility and status at the time she began treating Cockburn. Therefore, the Court will not exclude such evidence.

    On the other hand, evidence about medical malpractice claims made against Waguespack are not relevant and would be more prejudicial than probative, and so will not be admitted into evidence. The questions raised by Buffalo Marine and Apex regarding the reliability of Waguespack’s testimony, such as the basis for her diagnosis, causation opinion, and the necessity of future treatment, can be addressed through vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of countervailing expert testimony.

    Jordan Frankel

    Buffalo Marine and Apex argued that Frankel’s testimony as to the cost of future medical treatment is predicated on Waguespack’s recommendation for a cervical fusion and that such evidence should be excluded to the extent that Waguespack’s testimony is excluded.

    Because the Court is not excluding Waguespack’s opinions on future treatment, it will not exclude Frankel’s opinions based on them.

    Held

    The Court denied Buffalo Marine and Apex’s motions in limine to exclude the testimony of Alexis Waguespack and Jordan Frankel.

    Key Takeaway:

    Waguespack’s temporary lapse in board certification does not mean that she lacked expertise, especially considering her long career as an orthopedic surgeon and history of treating Cockburn. However, it does raise questions as to her credibility and status at the time she began treating Cockburn. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Cockburn V. Apex Oil Company Inc Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:22cv2058
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: August 22, 2025
  • Forensic Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Industry Safety Standards Admitted

    Forensic Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Industry Safety Standards Admitted

    Plaintiff Hui Wang brought suit against Omni Hotels Management seeking damages from a fall she suffered on September 25, 2018, in the lobby of the Omni New Haven Hotel at Yale. Wang alleged that she fell due to “water that had accumulated on the floor” and that Omni was negligent in allowing that water to accumulate and in failing to warn her about the slipping hazard.

    Omni sought to preclude the admission of Douglas A. Fisher, a forensic engineering expert retained by the Plaintiff with more than 35 years of experience. Omni also sought to preclude Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Brad J. Yoo, from offering opinions about the permanency of Wang’s injuries.

    Forensic Engineering Expert Witness

    Douglas A. Fisher is a forensic engineering expert with more than 35 years of diversified engineering experience in the fields of forensic evaluations, building design, and construction administration.

    Get the full story on challenges to Douglas A. Fisher’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Brad Joonschik Yoo, MD is a board-certified orthopaedic trauma surgeon and Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation. He specializes in treating severe fractures, post-fracture complications, as well as deformities and arthritis of the lower extremity.

    Yoo graduated cum laude from Cornell University. He obtained his medical degree from New York Medical College where he first found his passion for orthopaedics. Next came a residency in Baltimore, MD at the University of Maryland Medical Center, the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, and the Johns Hopkins Hospital. He then spent a fellowship year specializing in orthopaedic trauma at the University of Washington Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

    Want to know more about the challenges Brad Joonschik Yoo has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Omni’s motion to preclude Fisher

    Fisher relied on his knowledge of the relative slipperiness of flooring materials under different conditions and industry standards for mitigating slipping risks. Fisher then applied this background to the video he saw and drew conclusions on that basis. In so doing, he relied on the coefficient of friction, “a numeric value that represents the amount of friction between two objects” as determined by a tribometer, as well as the American National Standards Institute guidelines for commercial entrance matting.

    Omni sought to preclude three of Fisher’s opinions: (1) his “opinions regarding the cause of Plaintiff’s fall,” (2) his opinions regarding the proper placement of the floor mats in the Hotel lobby, and (3) his opinions regarding the characteristics of the Hotel flooring.

    As to each, Omni raised essentially three challenges: (1) as it would be offered as an exhibit, Fisher’s export report contains inadmissible hearsay, (2) Fisher’s opinions are not based on sufficiently reliable methodologies, and (3) Fisher’s opinions are not likely to be helpful to the jury.

    First, Omni objected to Fisher’s opinion that “‘Wang was caused to slip, fall, and become injured due to moisture on an exposed area of the marble tile flooring.’”

    Omni also objected to Fisher’s further opinions that “‘[t]he Omni hotel failed to maintain the subject area in a safe condition,’” and “‘Omni failed to inspect the floor in order to prevent a hazardous and dangerous condition.’”

    Analysis

    The Court concluded that two of Fisher’s three opinions are admissible.  In essence, Omni argued that determining what happened when Wang fell is so straightforward a task that a jury can review the video of her fall and other evidence and reach a conclusion as to the issues in dispute without the assistance of an expert. However, even if a jury could review the video and reach its own conclusions as to both (1) the cause of Wang’s fall and (2) whether the floor was maintained in a safe condition, the Court concluded that Fisher’s expertise as an engineer will assist the jury in that task and that these two opinions are based on sufficiently reliable methods and data to be admissible.

    To the contrary, Fisher applied no particular expert methodologies to conclude that “Omni failed to inspect the floor in order to prevent a hazardous and dangerous condition.” Instead, the Court held that Fisher merely summarized testimony in the record from Omni employees and found that Omni’s employees perhaps could not have seen the front lobby well enough to look for liquid on the floor and may have failed to examine the lobby frequently on the day in question.

    As for the issue of hearsay contained within his report, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that he would have no issue redacting portions of Fisher’s report that contained hearsay. Because the Parties may be in agreement on a path forward regarding alleged hearsay in Fisher’s report, the Court need not resolve whether each potentially inadmissible statement in Fisher’s report meets Rule 703‘s standard. 

    Omni’s motion to preclude the permanency opinion of Yoo

    Omni sought to preclude Yoo from offering opinions about the permanency of Wang’s injuries. Yoo last treated Wang in 2019 but only formulated his opinion as to the permanency of her disability in 2022 through his review of years-old medical records.

    But Wang sought to offer Yoo to testify regarding a probable current disability. Yoo’s permanency opinion—formed separately from his treatment of Wang and on the basis of years-old information—cannot constitute the opinion of a doctor treating Wang, and, instead, would require a separate expert designation. Yoo conceded that because his opinion as to permanency was based on information at least five years old, he “did not know if Wang has any disability currently.”

    As a result, the Court concluded that Yoo’s opinions as to permanency must be excluded and granted Omni’s motion to exclude this opinion from Yoo’s testimony. 

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Omni’s motion to preclude the testimony of Douglas A. Fisher.
    • The Court granted Omni’s motion to preclude the permanency opinion of Dr. Brad J. Yoo.

    Key Takeaway:

    While expert testimony regarding the mechanics of a fall and industry safety standards and their supporting reasoning is more likely than not to help the jury resolve material issues in dispute, Fisher applied no particular expert methodologies to conclude that “Omni failed to inspect the floor in order to prevent a hazardous and dangerous condition.” The Court held that these conclusions are based on straightforward review of the evidence without application of particular “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” and therefore allowing Fisher to testify on this issue would impermissibly usurp the role of the jury. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Wang V. Omni Hotels Management Corporation
    Docket Number: 3:18cv2000
    Court Name: United States District Court, Connecticut
    Order Date: June 27, 2025
  • Accounting Expert Allowed to Testify About the Lifetime Loss of Earnings

    Accounting Expert Allowed to Testify About the Lifetime Loss of Earnings

    Plaintiff Kimberly Breuil claimed that she was injured in a motor vehicle accident that took place on October 8, 2021.

    Breuil claimed that her injuries have made it painful to look downward and difficult to lift objects. As a result, she is seeking future lost wages and diminished earning capacity totaling between $483,273 and $1,085,644. She alleged that these injuries forced her to resign from her job at the United States Postal Service and take a lower-paying job at Pizza Hut or a similar employer for the remainder of her career. Breuil asserted that she has already experienced, and will continue to experience, loss of income and earning potential.

    Defendants Liberty Land Carriers, LLC and Michael White filed motions to exclude three of Breuil’s experts, Brooke Liggett, Dr. Brett Miller and Brendan Bourdage arguing that they have failed to satisfy the requirements for admissible expert testimony set forth in Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Brooke A. Liggett is a Certified Public Accountant, a Master Analyst in Financial Forensics, a Certified Valuation Analyst, and is also certified in Financial Forensics. She is the owner of Liggett Forensic Accounting and Economics.

    She specializes in calculating economic damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, as well as in business-related economic damages.

    Get the full story on challenges to Brooke Liggett’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Brett Anthony Miller is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon and sports medicine specialist. Miller finished his undergraduate education at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, before earning his Doctor of Medicine degree from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in Kansas City, Kansas. There, he went on to complete both his internship and orthopedic surgery residency at the University of Kansas Medical Center. 

    Miller joined Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Center in 2004. At the practice’s office in St. Joseph, Missouri, Miller offers specialized care for sports-related and acute injuries using evidence-based medicine and modern operative techniques, including shoulder arthroscopy. 

    Want to know more about the challenges Brett Miller has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness

    Brendan P. Bourdage holds an M.S. in Kinesiology from California Polytechnic University, Humboldt. He has successfully completed numerous continuing education courses in crash analysis, collision reconstruction and investigation, as well as other training related to motor vehicle accidents. He holds licenses and registrations in engineering, traffic accident reconstruction, and functional movement, and has published articles and presented seminars on these topics.

    Discover more cases with Brendan Bourdage as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Brooke Liggett

    Liggett, a Certified Public Accountant, initially calculated that the Plaintiff’s change in employment had resulted in a lifetime loss of earnings between $488,273 and $1,085,644.

    However, the Plaintiff clarified that Liggett did not offer any opinions on whether the accident caused the Plaintiff to leave her job at the United States Postal Service (USPS), whether she could have continued working there, or on any other causation-related issues. Instead, Liggett’s role was limited to comparing the Plaintiff’s former earning capacity at USPS to her income at the time. She relied on the Plaintiff’s own statements about her inability to continue working at USPS and based her calculations on the Plaintiff’s then-current job and income.

    Moreover, Liggett explicitly stated that she was not a vocational expert and was not offering vocational opinions. Her testimony was confined to calculating the financial losses related to earning capacity and retirement benefits, which was within the scope of her expertise as a CPA. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserted that Liggett had no opinions about whether the Defendants caused the Plaintiff’s injuries or whether those injuries led to a reduction in earnings.

    Consequently, the Plaintiff contended that, if the jury concluded the Defendants were responsible for the Plaintiff’s job loss, Liggett’s testimony would assist the jury in determining the amount of damages. Ultimately, the Court found that Liggett was qualified to testify about present value calculations. Any concerns raised by the Defendants could be addressed through cross-examination or the presentation of contrary evidence. Importantly, the record contained no indication that Liggett intended to offer opinions on causation or vocational matters, and any such testimony would not be permitted. She was allowed to testify strictly in her capacity as an accountant, relying on admissible evidence.

    Brett Miller

    Miller, an orthopedic surgeon, conducted an independent medical examination of the Plaintiff. The Defendants sought to prevent him from offering any opinions on the Plaintiff’s mental health conditions allegedly caused by the accident, arguing that he is not qualified to do so. In response, the Plaintiffs stated that they have withdrawn any opinions Miller may have had regarding the Plaintiff’s mental health or depression. Therefore, they argued, the Defendants’ motion is now moot.

    In reply, the Defendants maintained that the Court should formally exclude any such opinions, since Miller, as an orthopedic surgeon, is not qualified to opine on mental health issues. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs had clearly stated—both in their filings and on the record—that Miller would not offer any testimony or opinions related to the Plaintiff’s mental health or depression.

    If the Plaintiffs later attempt to introduce such opinions from Miller at trial, the Court will address any objections from the Defendants at that time. However, since the Plaintiffs have already withdrawn these opinions, they will not be allowed at trial. As a result, the motion to exclude is denied as moot.

    Brendan Bourdage

    The Defendants argued that Bourdage was not qualified to offer expert testimony on several issues, including the speed of impact during the collision, the change in velocity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the effect of the collision on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, they claimed that Bourdage was not a medical expert and, therefore, should not have been permitted to testify about the Plaintiff’s injuries or their causes. Moreover, they contended that he lacked the necessary engineering background to provide biomechanical opinions.

    In addition, the Defendants moved to exclude Bourdage’s opinions entirely, asserting that his conclusions were not sufficiently connected to the facts of the case and would not assist the jury in resolving any factual disputes. Furthermore, they challenged the reliability of Bourdage’s methodology.

    After reviewing Bourdage’s CV and expert report, the Court found that the Defendants’ concerns were more appropriately addressed through cross-examination. Accordingly, Bourdage was permitted to present the opinions set forth in his report regarding how rear-end collisions could cause injuries, along with the general mechanisms and contributing factors involved in such injuries. However, because Bourdage was not a medical doctor, the Court ruled that he could not—and would not—be allowed to testify about the specific injuries the Plaintiff may have suffered in this collision.

    Held

    To begin with, all rulings by this Court on Daubert motions are preliminary in nature. The Court’s rulings are subject to change based on the evidence and testimony presented during trial.

    • The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Brooke Liggett.
    • The Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Brett Miller was denied as moot.
    • The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Brendan Bourdage, PhD.

    Key Takeaways:

    1. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Liggett has any opinion about causation or any vocational opinions. Liggett may testify as an accountant relying on other admissible testimony.
    1. Bourdage is not a medical doctor and cannot, and will not, be allowed to testify as to what injuries this Plaintiff actually suffered in this collision.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Breuil Et Al V. White Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:23cv5048
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: June 17, 2025