Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Radiologist

  • Radiology Expert’s Appropriateness of Treatment Opinions Admitted

    Radiology Expert’s Appropriateness of Treatment Opinions Admitted

    Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon was involved in a motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) in April 2021 that left her with “a permanent injury to the body as a whole” leading to this underinsured motorist benefits and loss of consortium case.

    One of Defendant’s expert witnesses, Dr. Richard A. Ofstein, emphasized that Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s brain imaging was “most consistent with, if not diagnostic for, an incidental cavernous angioma,” rather than a TBI. As for her spine and shoulder injuries, Ofstein opined these were consistent with aging or “degenerative” changes or disease, rather than an acute trauma.

    In reaching the opinions outlined in his report, Ofstein consulted the medical records for Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon that were provided to him, including numerous diagnostic images (MRIs and angiograms).

    Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Ofstein from testifying at trial. According to them, “ Ofstein is not qualified to give such opinions,” “his opinions are not based on sufficient facts and data,” and “his opinions are not based on a reliable scientific methodology.”

    Radiology Expert Witness

    Richard Alan Ofstein is a radiologist with over forty years of experience. He is board certified in Diagnostic Radiology and has a Certificate of Added Qualifications in Neuroradiology. He is currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Radiology at the University of Utah and previously worked as an Assistant Clinical Professor of Radiology at the UCLA School of Medicine. Additionally, Ofstein worked in private practice for most of his career.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualifications

    Plaintiffs argued that Ofstein is not qualified to give the opinions from his report. According to them, “although Ofstein might be qualified to give radiology opinions, i.e., what he sees on Plaintiff’s diagnostic imaging, he is not qualified to give opinion testimony on the specific causation of injury that might arise as a result of a motor vehicle accident, nor the appropriateness or relatedness of any treatment incurred or to be incurred by Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon.”

    The Court disagreed. A radiologist may opine on the likely cause of an injury observed in radiological imaging, such as whether an injury results from an acute trauma or degeneration. Furthermore, Ofstein made clear in his deposition that he was not opining on the medical appropriateness of Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s spinal and shoulder surgeries. Rather, Ofstein clarified that he was “addressing the relationship of the need for surgery and the accident at issue.”

    In other words, Ofstein’s opinion on the surgeries was appropriately limited to the fact that the injuries addressed by those surgeries were not caused by the motor vehicle accident. This opinion falls within the expertise of a radiologist.

    Methodology

    According to Plaintiffs, Ofstein’s methodology in reaching his opinions was unreliable. They complained that “Ofstein’s opinions are not founded on any established scientific method” because “he solely relies on the deposition of the Plaintiff in performing his clinical correlation and coming to his opinions.” Plaintiffs also contended that Ofstein’s “opinions are not based on sufficient facts or data”: “Ofstein’s deposition testimony shows that his opinions on causation and relatedness or appropriateness of treatment were based only on him looking at the radiological studies and medical records from [Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s] treating providers after the subject accident.” Thus, in Plaintiffs’ view, “Ofstein’s opinion in this case lacks the proper informational foundation to opine on causation and relatedness or appropriateness of medical treatment.”

    Again, the Court disagreed. Ofstein used a trustworthy methodology in reviewing Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s radiological images in reaching his conclusions.

    The fact that Ofstein “did not review any of Plaintiff’s medical records outside of the radiology reports produced by Plaintiff’s treating physicians” did not render his methodology unreliable. Ofstein’s review of the radiological imaging, the radiology reports from Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s treating physicians, as well as the police report from the accident and Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s deposition, supports that he applied a sufficiently trustworthy methodology in reaching his opinions.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs Sabrina and Stanford Solomon’s Daubert motion to exclude causation and appropriateness of treatment opinions of Defendant’s expert, Dr. Richard Ofstein.

    Key Takeaway:

    The methodology used by Ofstein is standard and consistent with the literature and methodology used by radiologists in the United States. The fact that the expert radiologist did not review Plaintiff’s complete medical
    records did not render his methodology unreliable. In fact, it is consistent with the way that radiologists interpret films every day.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Solomon Et Al V. Aig Property Casualty Company
    Docket Number: 8:24cv2650
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
    Order Date: October 23, 2025
  • Radiology Expert Witness’ Specific Findings As to the Plaintiff’s Spine Area Admitted

    Radiology Expert Witness’ Specific Findings As to the Plaintiff’s Spine Area Admitted

    On December 9, 2021, Plaintiff Darryl Everson was driving in Montz, Louisiana, when he claimed that Defendant David Rugg (“Rugg”) negligently felled a tree along the roadway. The Plaintiff contended that the tree landed on his car, causing injuries to his back and neck. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that Rugg was employed by Defendant Romesberg Trucking Inc. (“RTI”), which was covered by Nautilus Insurance Company. He asserted that RTI and Rugg failed to exercise reasonable care in their tree-cutting activities near an active roadway. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that they did not provide warnings, did not monitor approaching vehicles, inadequately trained Rugg, and created a dangerous situation.  

    Defendants retained Robert Morris to read and interpret MRI images of Plaintiff’s spine area, specifically his L1 through S5 disc spaces.

    Morris opined that all the disc spaces he reviewed were “unremarkable” except for the L4-L5 disc space, which Morris found to show a “small disc bulge with moderate central disc protrusion, resulting in moderate bilateral recess stenosis.” Overall, Morris opined that “the exact age of the disc bulge and protrusion at L4-L5 is indeterminate from this single exam.” He also found that “aside from the disc bulge and protrusion at L4-L5, the other levels appear normal.”

    Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Morris, Defendants’ expert radiologist.

    Radiology Expert Witness

    Robert W. Morris attended medical school at the University of Mississippi School of Medicine. This was followed by radiology residency and a musculoskeletal radiology fellowship at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. After fellowship, he worked in private practice radiology for several years before joining the faculty at UMMC in February 2016.

    Get the full story on challenges to Robert W. Morris’ expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiff contended that Morris’ testimony should be excluded because (1) Defendants failed to comply with 26(a)(2)(B) and (2) Morris’ methodology is not reliable.

    Defendant’s violation of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) can be rendered harmless by the recent continuance in this matter

    Defendants argued that they complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) by including Morris on their witness list. Moreover, they contended that Plaintiff could have obtained the information by deposing Morris. The Court held that these arguments are meritless because Rule 26(a)(2)(B) squarely puts the burden on the party presenting the experts to summarize ‘the facts and opinions,’ not on the opposing party to figure it out.

    Although the Court finds that Defendant’s violation of Rule 26 is not “substantially justified,” the Court concludes that the violation is “harmless.” This case has recently been continued, and Plaintiff now has several more months to review Defendants’ disclosures.

    Morris’ testimony is sufficiently reliable

    Prohibiting the jury from hearing about Morris’ opinions would increase the jury’s confusion

    Plaintiff argued that allowing Morris to testify would be duplicative and confusing to the jury because Defendant has engaged another medical expert to opine on causation. The Court disagreed. Even if the Court prohibited Morris from testifying, the Defendant’s medical expert might still refer to Morris’ report at trial. Accordingly, prohibiting the jury from hearing about Morris’ opinions from Morris himself would increase, rather than decrease, the jury’s confusion about the separate specialties and opinions of Morris and the medical expert retained to opine on causation.

    Morris will only be allowed to testify as to opinions expressed in his report

    Defendants mentioned various uses for Morris’ testimony such as proving that Plaintiff had a pre-existing condition, that his weight caused his injuries, and that there is a consensus in the medical community that middle aged people have cervical and lumbar abnormalities. While Defendants may feel that Morris’ two listed opinions support those propositions, the Court noted that Morris does not actually offer any of these opinions in his report. If, at trial, Defendants ask Morris to opine outside of the scope of the opinions listed in his report, the Court will sustain an objection at that time.

    To be clear, Morris will only be allowed to testify as to opinions expressed in his report including the specific “findings” as to each disc and the two opinions he provides: (1) “the exact age of the disc bulge and protrusion at L4-L5 is indeterminate from this single exam” and (2) “aside from the disc bulge and protrusion at L4-5, the other levels appear normal.”

    Although the Court allowed Morris to testify, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request that Morris’ testimony be limited to the opinions expressed in his report.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude Dr. Robert Morris.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court found that Morris’ testimony is sufficiently reliable. Given the nature of the radiological practice—analysis of discrete images—courts routinely allow expert radiologists to testify even where they have not reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical records or examined the Plaintiff.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Arborist Expert Witnesses’ Opinions on Tree Removal Safety Admitted

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Everson V. Nautilus Ins. Co. 
    Docket Number: 2:23cv1360
    Court: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: October 9, 2024