--- title: "Evaluating PTSD Imaging Experts: A Rule 702 Court Decision" meta: "og:description": "Expert witness challenges concern PTSD imaging and Rule 702. Learn how courts evaluate medical testimony" "og:title": "Evaluating PTSD Imaging Experts: A Rule 702 Court Decision" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "Expert witness challenges concern PTSD imaging and Rule 702. Learn how courts evaluate medical testimony" --- # Evaluating PTSD Imaging Experts: A Rule 702 Court Decision Posted on March 3, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler In a recent legal dispute**,** the admissibility of expert testimony regarding medical imaging and its correlation to PTSD research was challenged. Specifically**,** this case highlights the importance of timeliness and the application of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in evaluating expert qualifications and the reliability of their opinions. Initially**,** the Defendant filed a motion in limine to limit the testimony of [Travis Snyder](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Travis-Snyder/1522918), DO, an expert witness for the Plaintiff. Furthermore**,** the Defendant argued that Snyder was unqualified to testify on “imaging findings of PTSD” and that his opinions lacked supporting scientific data. ## **Neuroradiology Expert Witness** [Travis Snyder](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Travis-Snyder/1522918) is a neuroradiologist, with a certified sub-specialty in diagnosing and characterizing disorders of the nervous system, including the spine and brain. He is the residency director of radiology at Mountain View HCA hospital system and holds various academic appointments with 4 regional medical schools. [Get the full story on challenges to Travis Snyder’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://app.expertwitnessprofiler.com/login?eId=1522918) ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **Defendant’s Objections** Firstly**,** the Defendant argued that Snyder, despite his expertise, was not qualified to interpret medical imaging specifically in the context of diagnosing or identifying PTSD. Moreover**,** the Defendant claimed that Snyder’s opinions lacked a solid foundation in established scientific data. In particular**,** they argued that he hadn’t provided concrete evidence, such as specific studies or research, to back up his claims about the correlation between imaging findings and PTSD. ### **Plaintiff’s Opposition and Clarification:** In response, the Plaintiff explicitly stated that Snyder would _not_ be offering a diagnosis of PTSD based on his imaging findings. Instead, Snyder’s testimony would focus on a more limited and, according to the Plaintiff, qualified area: “whether certain imaging findings are consistent with patterns observed in PTSD-related research,” which is in line with his expertise. ### **Court’s Observations and Rulings:** The Court emphasized that the Defendant’s motion was filed significantly after the deadline for motions to exclude expert testimony, and no “good cause justification” was provided for the delay. Additionally**,** the Court determined that Snyder’s disclosed opinions were sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 702, which mandates that expert testimony be relevant and reliable. #### _**Qualification**_ The Court found that Snyder’s CV and deposition testimony demonstrated his qualifications to draw correlations between imagery and other scientific research. #### _**Reliability**_ The Court deemed Snyder’s opinion regarding the link between PTSD and abnormalities in the hippocampus in peer-reviewed studies as sufficiently reliable and relevant. The Court clarified that Snyder will be permitted to offer the challenged opinions insofar as he does not seek to make a diagnosis and otherwise testifies consistently with his disclosed findings. ## **Held** The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to limit the testimony of Travis Snyder. ## **Key Takeaways:** - **Timeliness Matters:** Motions challenging expert testimony must be filed within designated deadlines. - **Rule 702 Gatekeeping:** Courts have a duty to ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable, focusing on qualifications and a sufficient factual basis. - **Scope of Expertise:** Experts must testify within the bounds of their qualifications and disclosed opinions. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T200052.311.jpg) [**Human Resources Expert Allowed to Opine on Termination**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/evaluating-ptsd-imaging-experts-a-rule-702-court-decision/human-resources-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-termination)![Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-22T144728.528.jpg) [**Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline **](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/evaluating-ptsd-imaging-experts-a-rule-702-court-decision/neuropsychology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-cognitive-decline)![Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T191749.960.jpg) [**Human Factors Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Tile**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/evaluating-ptsd-imaging-experts-a-rule-702-court-decision/human-factors-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-tile)![Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-21T155751.487.jpg) [**Insurance Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Legal Duties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/evaluating-ptsd-imaging-experts-a-rule-702-court-decision/insurance-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-legal-duties)![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/evaluating-ptsd-imaging-experts-a-rule-702-court-decision/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)