Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Laceration

  • Biomechanics Expert Witness is Qualified to Opine on What Caused Plaintiff’s Injury 

    Biomechanics Expert Witness is Qualified to Opine on What Caused Plaintiff’s Injury 

    This matter involves an incident that occurred on May 29, 2020. At the time, the Plaintiff, David Zuniga, was present during the George Floyd protests in Grand Park, Downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiff and his experts contended that Defendant Officer Aaron Green struck him with a nonlethal projectile to his head. Officer Green, along with the other named officer Defendants, was assisting in controlling a crowd of protestors. The protestors unlawfully protested in the Grand Park area after the Court declared an unlawful assembly and issued a dispersal order.

    Defendants filed a motion to preclude the report and opinions of Plaintiffs’ biomechanics expert, John Gardiner, on the grounds that such evidence is irrelevant, improper, misstates the law, speculative, and would unduly prejudice Defendants.

    Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion on the grounds that Gardiner’s opinions are based on the sworn testimony of Plaintiff and several Defendants. Additionally, Gardiner relied on video from body cameras and medical records. Plaintiff also argues that Gardiner is qualified to opine on the cause of Plaintiff’s injury because he is a biomechanics expert that has testified in other cases. 

    Biomechanics Expert Witness

    John Gardiner holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Bioengineering from the University of Utah and a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering from the University of Minnesota. He is a principal and senior biomechanical engineer at MEA Forensic. He joined the firm in 2002 and leads the Biomechanics Group in the Los Angeles office. Gardiner is responsible for conducting reconstruction and biomechanical analyses of a variety of events including automobile collisions, falls, sports injuries, and shootings. 

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Gardiner offered the following opinions:

    1. The video evidence and testimony are consistent with Zuniga being located within a group of protestors on N Spring St. at the time he sustained this injury.
    2. The video evidence and testimony indicate that multiple less-lethal rounds were fired in the general direction of Zuniga’s location north of the officers.
    3. The horizontal nature of the laceration on the top of Zuniga’s head is consistent with contact from an approximately horizontally traveling less-lethal munition.
    4. The description and appearance of Zuniga’s scalp laceration is consistent with contact by a bean bag round fired by Officer Green.

    In forming his conclusions, Gardiner reviewed various materials. Specifically, these included body camera video, testimony, and medical records, all of which he analyzed in detail. As a result, his opinions were supported by the evidence available to him, as established in previous rulings.

    The Defendants contended that Gardiner’s opinions were based on factual assumptions not supported by the record. They highlighted that, in his deposition, Gardiner admitted he could not specifically identify the Plaintiff in the video at the time of the shooting. Furthermore, he acknowledged that the Plaintiff might have moved from his last known location in the video before the less-lethal munitions were fired. However, the Plaintiff noted that Gardiner did not need to present his opinions with absolute certainty for his testimony to be admissible.

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ biomechanics expert, John Gardiner’s opinions and testimony at trial.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Gardiner has an extensive background and experience in biomechanics. This qualifies him to testify regarding the cause of the Plaintiff’s injury.
    • No part of Gardiner’s expert report indicated that any of his opinions are based on assumptions outside of the evidence provided. This includes body camera footage and medical records.
    • Gardiner’s opinion regarding the horizontal nature of the laceration and its consistency with less-lethal munitions is not a legal conclusion. It is an expert analysis of the injury’s cause.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness is Qualified to Opine On Tactics and Uses of Force Employed by the Police

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: David Zuniga V. City Of Los Angeles Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:22cv3665
    Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California
    Order Date: September 18, 2024
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness Barred from Testifying About Plaintiff’s Expressed Desire for Cesarean Delivery

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness Barred from Testifying About Plaintiff’s Expressed Desire for Cesarean Delivery

    This matter arises out of a medical malpractice action filed by Plaintiffs Tyler Grenier, individually, and Jenna Grenier, individually and as next friend of J.A.G., a minor, (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Defendant United States of America (“Defendant”) for alleged medical negligence at Tripler Army Medical Center (“Tripler”) related to the medical care by Defendant’s employees for prenatal care and labor of Plaintiff Jenna Grenier (“Jenna”), and the subsequent delivery of J.A.G.

    Severe physical injuries sustained by Jenna Grenier and J.A.G. are alleged as well as the negligent infliction of emotional distress to Plaintiff Tyler Grenier (“Tyler”) and Jenna; Plaintiffs’ loss of filial consortium; and Tyler’s loss of spousal consortium.

    In the instant motion, Defendant sought to exclude certain portions of opinions rendered by Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Adam Levy, M.D., because: his opinions regarding estimated fetal weight are unreliable; his opinions regarding Jenna’s operative delivery and using forceps resulting in excessive force are unreliable; his opinions about obtaining Jenna’s informed consent are unreliable; his opinions that Justin Pilgrim, D.O., and Asha Mada, D.O., were unqualified or incompetent are unreliable; his opinions that the medical care rendered to repair Jenna’s laceration injury are unreliable; and his opinions about the cause of the Minor Plaintiff’s injuries are unreliable and his deference on causation to a neonatologist acknowledged his lack of expertise.

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness

    Dr. Adam Levy is a board-certified obstetrician gynecologist and has been a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology since 1993. During his service in the Air Force he served as an OB/GYN specialist. He currently supervises and instructs residents in a high-risk pregnancy population labor and delivery.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs argued that Levy’s opinion that Defendant’s physicians failed to appreciate the risk for delivery complications because pre-delivery fetal growth was beyond the norm comports with accepted medical literature and therefore his opinion that the physicians who chose to deliver with forceps fell below the standard of care is reliable. As to Levy’s opinions regarding operative vaginal delivery, Plaintiffs argued that they are based on medical records and literature, and thus reliable.

    Plaintiffs argued that Levy’s opinion that Jenna was not given a meaningful choice as to the method of delivery is “consistent with the modern standards of the medical community, his own deposition testimony, and thus [is] reliable and should not be excluded.” As to Levy’s opinions regarding the standard of care provided by Pilgrim and Mada in proceeding with forceps delivery, Plaintiffs pointed to his education, work and training in the area of high-risk obstetrics in a teaching hospital as qualifying him to render his opinions and submit that qualifications go to weight and not admissibility.

    As to Levy’s opinion that the repair of the perineal laceration was done incorrectly, Plaintiffs submit that he is qualified to opine on the repair based on his education, training and experience. Plaintiffs submit that Levy’s opinions “regarding the traumatic birth being the cause of injuries to J.A.G. and his mother” are based on risks identified in medical literature and thus reliable.

    Levy opined that “[t]he breaches of the standard of care of [J.A.G.] has caused brain damage” and that “cesarean delivery would have prevented both the newborn birth injuries and maternal injuries in this case.”

    Levy’s opinions relate to the issue of medical standard of care

    Defendant did not challenge Levy’s opinions as being irrelevant nor that he lacks qualification in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. The Court ruled that Levy’s opinions relate to the issue of medical standard of care. If he has misconstrued the medical records, or his analysis is otherwise shaky, then pointing out any such failures is appropriate for cross-examination and not exclusion where the expert’s qualifications and relevance of his opinions are not in issue. However, because Levy has deferred to a neonatologist as to the cause of the minor Plaintiff’s injuries, the Court believed that he is not qualified to render opinion testimony that the physicians’ breaches of the standard of care for the minor Plaintiff “has caused brain damage among the multitude of injuries that are currently being treated and will require further treatment far into the foreseeable future[,]” and that opinion is excluded.

    As for his opinion regarding Jenna’s statements about whether she gave informed consent; the Court held the information to be factual because it did not require the assistance of an expert as required by Rule 702. The Court also excluded his opinion about Mada’s motivations. His conclusion that Jenna’s expressed desire for cesarean delivery was also ignored, was considered speculative at best.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the expert report and testimony of Dr. Adam Levy, M.D.

    Key Takeaway:

    Defendant did not challenge Levy’s opinions as being irrelevant nor that he lacks qualification in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. However, because Levy has deferred to a neonatologist as to the cause of the minor Plaintiff’s injuries, the Court believed that he is not qualified to render opinion testimony that the physicians’ breaches of the standard of care for the minor Plaintiff is the cause of brain damage.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness’ Opinions Admitted Because they Pertain to the Issue of Medical Standard of Care

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Grenier Et Al V. United States Of America
    Docket Number: 1:22cv396
    Court: United States District Court, Hawaii
    Order Date: September 5, 2024