Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Biomechanical Expert

Plaintiff’s Brief in support

of his Motion IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY

OF DEFENDANT’S EXPERT

Introduction

This is a third-party auto negligence case arising out of a rear-end auto accident that occurred on August 11, 2000. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his neck that required surgical intervention.

The Defendant apparently intends to dispute the causation of the Plaintiff’s injuries and has retained engineer [Expert] as an expert witness in this regard. Based upon his deposition testimony, [Expert] apparently intends to testify at trial that the accident did not cause the injuries sustained by Plaintiff.

[Expert] is being held out by the Defendant as a biomechanical engineer with expertise in injury causation in motor vehicle accidents. As a retired automotive engineer without any medical training, knowledge, or experience, [Expert] is unqualified to testify in any area involving physical injuries and their possible causes. Even if [Expert] were qualified to testify in those areas, [Expert] bases his testimony on unscientific “studies” that do not satisfy the requirements of the Michigan courts. Simply put, in accordance with the Michigan Rules of Evidence and both state statutory and common law, [Expert] should not be permitted to testify as an expert in this case on the cause or etiology of the Plaintiff’s cervical disk injuries.

Statement of Facts

A. The Case

This case involves a three-car automobile accident that occurred on August 11, 2000 at approximately 12:50 in the afternoon. (Exhibit 1, Police Report). Defendant was traveling west on West Road at approximately 25 miles per hour. (Exhibit 2, Deposition of Defendant p.15). Ms. testified that she did not notice that the cars in front of her had stopped and could not avoid rear-ending the vehicle in front of her. Ms. testified that she did not apply the brakes until she was half a car length behind the vehicle in front of her. (Exhibit 2, p. 18).

The driver in the vehicle that was initially rear-ended was seventy-six year old Mrs. . Mrs. testified that she was stopped and was approximately two car lengths behind the car in front of her when she noticed Ms. ’s vehicle approaching in her left side-view mirror. (Exhibit 3, Deposition of , p. 11.) Mrs. applied pressure to her breaks in expectation of the collision, and was struck by Ms. . (Exhibit 3, p. 12.) Mrs. testified that she did not hear tires squealing before the accident. As a result of the collision, Mrs. ’s vehicle was sent forward and into the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Mrs. estimated that her vehicle was pushed forward more than 12 feet as a result of being struck by Ms. _____. (Exhibit 3, p. 13.)

The Plaintiff was the driver of the third vehicle involved in the accident. His vehicle was stopped because there was a car in front of him who was stopped and waiting for traffic to clear to make a left turn. (Exhibit 4, Deposition of Plaintiff p. 26.) Plaintiff’s car was then struck suddenly and unexpectedly by Mrs. _____’s vehicle.

Plaintiff was wearing his seat belt, and testified to being jerked forward and then back as a result of the accident. (Exhibit 4, p. 36.) As Plaintiff fell back into the seat, he struck his left shoulder against the bucket seat. Plaintiff testified to feeling immediate pain. (Exhibit 4, p. 37.) The investigating police officer, , testified that Plaintiff made complaints of pain to him immediately after the accident. (Exhibit 5, Deposition of Officer _____, p. 10.)

Plaintiff’s pain steadily increased during the next two hours after the accident, after which Plaintiff went to the Emergency Department for treatment. (Exhibit 6, History and Physical report, p. 1; Exhibit 4, p. 42.) During the examination, Dr. found that “the left hand is icy cold as compared to the right hand.” (Exhibit 6, p. 1.) Dr. _____ diagnosed Plaintiff with a spinal cord injury in the cervical spine area. A CT scan of the spine showed a central herniated disk at the C4-5 level. Dr. also diagnosed lumbosacral radiculopathy with weakness with brisk reflexes. (Exhibit 6, p. 2).

On November 16, 2000, Plaintiff underwent major surgery as a direct result of the injuries sustained as a result of the auto accident on August 11, 2000. The surgery required the removal of Plaintiff’s herniated discs at C4-5 and C5-6 and their replacement with donated disks and a steel plate. (Exhibit 7, Operative Report.)

B. Defendant’s Proffered Expert

Defendant’s proffered expert witness, [Expert], has concluded that the Plaintiff could not have sustained any injuries as a result of the accident in question, despite objective medical evidence to the contrary. (Exhibit 8, p.15). This type of testimony requires that an expert be qualified based upon education, training, and specialized skill. In particular, such an expert must have significant medical training to render an opinion on injury causation.

[Expert] is completely unqualified to render any opinion as to the likelihood of whether an event caused a particular bodily injury. In the present case, he is not qualified by any means to testify regarding the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries.

At his discovery deposition, [Expert] was examined extensively to determine whether he has qualifications to render an opinion on causation in this case. [Expert’s] own testimony alone regarding his education and training suffices to bar him from rendering an opinion regarding the cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Plaintiff has listed below numerous reasons why [Expert] is an unqualified witness:

a. He has no medical training whatsoever (Exhibit 8, p.14);

b. He never attended medical school (Exhibit 8, p.25 );

c. He is not certified as a biomechanic (Exhibit 8, p.35);

d. He has never taken a course in anatomy or physiology (Exhibit 8, p.25);

e. He does not subscribe to any medical journals (Exhibit 8, p.26);

f. He has never written or published an article relating to any aspect of injury causation in low-speed auto accidents (Exhibit 8, p.62);

g. He did not review the deposition transcripts of any of the parties or witnesses (including those of the police officer or driver of the second vehicle) (Exhibit 8, p.12-13);

h. He does not know what a cervical herniated disk is or what potential for injury a low speed accident could have for a cervical disk (Exhibit 8, p.32);

i. He is completely unfamiliar with the anatomy of the spine (Exhibit 8, p. 31, 32);

j. He did not review the Plaintiff’s medical records (Exhibit 8, p. 13, 14);

k. He is not qualified to review diagnostic films like CT Scans or MRI’s (Exhibit 8, p.31);

l. He has never qualified to testify as to the causation of injuries and admits that he is not an expert on injury causation issues (Exhibit 8, p.35, 39, 40);

[Expert’s] total lack of experience, skill, education, or knowledge in the field of medicine, or any related field, is undeniable. Notwithstanding this lack of qualifications, [Expert] plans to testify that “the forces involved in the accident and the accelerations are well within the...