Expert Testimony on the Severity of the Collision Limited

In August 2023, John Hampton was asleep in the cab of his parked truck when Defendant Murshad Abdulahi, an employee of Defendant MAH United Trucking, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), struck Hampton's truck cab while attempting to back his own tractor-trailer into a parking space.

Hampton next filed a motion to exclude, or in the alternative limit, the testimony of expert witnesses Dr. Brett A. Scott and Dr. Seth D. Rosenzweig.

Neurological Surgery Expert Witness

Dr. Brett Andrew Scott is a board-certified neurosurgeon who earned his medical degree with honors from the University of Illinois College of Medicine in 1980. He completed a surgical internship and a five-year neurosurgery residency at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, and served as a medical officer aboard the USS Mississippi. He was certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery in 1990 and is licensed to practice in Kentucky.

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

Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

Dr. Seth Daniel Rosenzweig is a fellowship-trained, board-certified orthopaedic surgeon specializing in Sports Medicine; Arthroscopic & Joint Replacement Surgery. He completed fellowship training in Sports Medicine at the Campbell Clinic and Foundation in Memphis, TN, and also completed a joint replacement fellowship at Tulane in New Orleans, LA. Today, he holds a Mako certification in hip, partial knee, and total knee replacement surgeries.

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

Discussion by the Court

Hampton argued that while each doctor is a licensed physician, neither has any expertise in biomechanics, and they are therefore not qualified to give testimony concerning the physical forces involved in the crash.

Hampton first contended that the reliability of Scott's report is insufficient because "the report does not identify any scientific methodology used to reach the conclusions" that the injuries are attributable to a degenerative condition rather than accident trauma. This is, however, not entirely accurate. Scott does provide four references for his conclusions, in addition to his lengthy qualifications, from which much of his personal expertise is drawn.

Additionally, both reports provide more basis for each doctor's opinion beyond external sources. For example, both opinions rely heavily on review of Hampton's medical records, in addition to a physical examination. Evaluation of medical history is a reliable methodology for the formation of an expert opinion. Evaluation of a patient’s medical history is particularly relevant when a controversy involves pre-existing conditions, as here.

Finally, Hampton questions the reliability of the American Medical Association ("AMA") newsletter as a source; however, courts have before found AMA publications to be reliable when analyzing the reliability of expert reports. Any remaining challenges go to the weight of the testimony and are for a jury to decide. The opinions of Drs. Scott and Rosenzweig have a reasonable factual basis and therefore will not be excluded on general reliability grounds.

Hampton’s primary issue with the expert reports, as reiterated in his reply, is with their conclusions about the level of impact from the collision. Because, as already discussed, Defendants’ experts have a reliable basis for their medical testimony, to the extent that they give opinions regarding whether or not the accident caused the various injuries Hampton claims he has suffered, the experts are clearly within the scope of testimony allowed from them by Kentucky law.

The medical experts in this instance may assist the jury in determining the nature of Hampton’s injuries and their cause. Defendants’ experts should not be entirely prevented from testifying simply because part of their opinion is based on conclusions drawn from the facts outside their area of medical expertise. To the extent Hampton believes that each doctor’s medical opinion relies exclusively on assumptions about the crash’s level of impact, Hampton may subject them to cross-examination.

Scott and Rosenzweig will, however, be prevented from giving conclusive opinions on the severity of the crash itself. While they have presented qualifications and a reliable basis for their medical opinions regarding causation, they have presented no methodology, test results, or qualifications which might form the reliable basis for a direct opinion on the forces present in this collision.

To this limited extent, Hampton’s motion to exclude testimony is granted. This ruling, however, will not prevent either doctor from testifying about the opinions presented in their reports, as those opinions are sufficiently within their area of expertise, are sufficiently grounded in fact, and are subject to cross-examination.

Held

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Brett A. Scott and Seth Rosenzweig.

Key Takeaway

Although an expert’s opinion is not admissible if it is speculative or mere guesswork, the Court should admit expert testimony if it has a reasonable factual basis.

Case Details: