Forensic Pathology Expert’s Conclusions About the Cause of Death Admitted
Posted on July 4, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 7, 2018, in Vinton, Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Billy Smith was operating a 2016 Kenworth T880 while traveling westbound on Interstate 10 on that date.
The vehicle was outfitted with Chinese-manufactured steel belt radial truck tires, distributed by CMA under the trade name “Double Coin tires.” The accident occurred when Smith’s tires suffered a catastrophic tread/belt separation, overturning the vehicle and severely injuring Smith. Smith passed away on September 4, 2021, and his surviving spouse and four adult children were substituted as Plaintiffs.
Defendants sought to introduce testimony from forensic pathologist, Dr. Franklin J. Peretti. Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude that testimony under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.
Peretti conducted the only autopsy on Smith. Plaintiffs did not challenge his qualifications but maintained that he lacked a sufficient factual basis for his opinions because he did not have Smith’s complete medical records when he conducted the autopsy.
Forensic Pathology Expert Witness
Dr. Franklin Joseph Peretti is a forensic pathologist with over 30 years of experience. He has served as associate or assistant medical examiner for the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, the Baltimore Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and the Rhode Island Medical Examiner’s Office.
Discussion by the Court
Peretti admitted at his deposition that he was not given any medical records or history at the time of the autopsy. Since that time, and before his deposition, he reviewed the death certificate provided by Calcasieu Parish coroner Dr. Terry Welke (who performed a limited post-mortem examination in lieu of an autopsy), the report of Plaintiffs’ treating neurologist Dr. David Weir (who did not examine Smith after his death), and the report and deposition of Plaintiffs’ consulting neurologist, Dr. Ian Hood (who never examined Smith).
He admitted that all of the information with the exception of Hood’s report was only provided to him on the morning of his deposition. He also admitted that it was “sort of an unfair autopsy” because he lacked any information at the time, including the death certificate.
Because of the lack of medical history, he did not fix the brain in formalin and perform a neuropathic examination. He advised, however, that he was not adverse to changing his opinion on a cause of death if provided with sufficient evidence. He found no basis in the reports provided to do so.
Analysis
Drs. Hood, Weir, and Welke came to a different conclusion on Smith’s cause of death, and will be able to defend that conclusion at trial based on their familiarity with the alleged progression of Smith’s neurological injury if properly qualified. But Peretti is a qualified forensic pathologist and performed the only autopsy in this matter.
He examined Smith’s brain and, even after reviewing the relevant medical opinions, found no basis to change his conclusion. Plaintiffs may cross-examine him as to the sufficiency of his autopsy and what findings he might have missed without a neuropathic examination. The Court held, however, that they failed to show that his conclusions were so unfounded as to provide no aid to the jury under Rule 702.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Franklin Peretti.
Key Takeaway:
Peretti did not have Smith’s complete medical records when he conducted the autopsy. He admitted as much. However, Peretti examined Smith’s brain and, even after reviewing the relevant medical opinions, found no basis to change his conclusion. Peretti is, after all, a qualified forensic pathologist and performed the only autopsy in this matter.
Rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, and the court’s role as gatekeeper “does not replace the traditional adversary system and the place of the jury within the system.”
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Tire Expert’s Impact Damage Theory Admitted
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Smith V. China Manufacturers Alliance LLC Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:19cv1111 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Louisiana Western |
| Order Date: | July 02, 2025 |
