Neurosurgery Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Lack of Textual Support
Posted on November 5, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
This litigation arises out of an auto accident involving Plaintiff Shaun E. Howard and a Tractor-trailer driven by Defendant Reginald Mitchell.
On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff was driving his vehicle on LA 21 in St. Tammany, Louisiana. As Plaintiff was driving in the left lane, Plaintiff alleged Mitchell, who was operating a tractor-trailer, attempted to merge into the left lane.
As a result of this accident Plaintiff alleged that he suffered multiple injuries treated, in part, by Dr. Eric Oberlander. Defendants sought to exclude Oberlander’s testimony regarding Plaintiff’s possible development of adjacent segment disease due to the alleged failure of Oberlander to provide testimony on the methodology used to reach this opinion.
Neurosurgery Expert Witness
Eric Oberlander is an award winning spine specialist who has developed one of the largest practices in the country. Oberlander graduated from Virginia Tech with degrees in Engineering, French and Chemistry. He was one of the first American engineering students to study at the prestigious Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees in Paris, France. He received his medical degree from Virginia Commonwealth University and continued his training at the Medical College of Virginia, where he completed his Neurosurgical residency, and fellowship in complex and minimally invasive spinal surgery. Oberlander also served his country as a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve from 2003-2012.
Oberlander joined The NeuroMedical Center in 2008 and served as The Spine Hospital of Louisiana’s elected Chief of Staff from 2012-2014. He is currently the team neurosurgeon for the LSU Athletic Department and has an active interest in concussion prevention and research.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants clarified they are not challenging Oberlander’s qualifications, education, or experience, but rather the basis of Oberlander’s opinion on adjacent segment disease. Oberlander claimed he had a “file cabinet” full of materials he used to conclude that Plaintiff will more likely than not develop adjacent segment disease. Defendants stated they served a subpoena duces tecum on Oberlander for a copy of these files, but the materials sent in response included none related to adjacent segment disease.
Oberlander’s deposition testimony indicated that he has been treating Plaintiff for about two years, reviewed Plaintiff’s imaging, and performed Plaintiff’s anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C6-7. While Oberlander did not provide studies that helped him reach his conclusions on adjacent segment disease, the Fifth Circuit has held “where an expert otherwise reliably utilizes scientific methods to reach a conclusion, lack of textual support may go to the weight, not admissibility of the expert’s testimony.”
In addition to being Plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon, Oberlander’s deposition testimony discusses how cervical fusion, a procedure Oberlander performed on Plaintiff, causes stress on adjacent levels. Oberlander further discussed how subsequent MRIs post Plaintiff’s surgery revealed “adjacent level pathology.
As such, this Court found that Oberlander’s testimony is reliable and relevant. The reliability inquiry requires the Court to assess whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert’s testimony is valid. Based on the evidence presented, Plaintiff has satisfied this burden. Although Defendants raised doubt as to Oberlander’s sources on which he bases his medical opinions, these issues are best addressed through “vigorous cross-examination” and “presentation of contrary evidence.”
Held
The Court denied Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude evidence of Eric Oberlander regarding future adjacent segment disease and future surgery.
Key Takeaway:
Defendants did not dispute Oberlander’s sixteen years of experience or the fact that he is an award-winning spine specialist who operates daily. However, Defendants argued that Oberlander did not provide the specific medical literature he used to arrive at his conclusion regarding the development of adjacent segment disease. It should be noted that the Fifth Circuit has held that “where an expert otherwise reliably utilizes scientific methods to reach a conclusion, lack of textual support may go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the expert’s testimony.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Howard V. J&B Hauling, Llc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 2:22cv993 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern |
| Order Date: | October 01, 2024 |
