Orthopaedic Surgery Expert Witness’ Testimony about the Severity of the Collision Admitted
Posted on July 16, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
A district judge in Nebraska admitted the testimony of an orthopedic spine surgeon despite lacking the required education, training and experience in physics, engineering, accident reconstruction or biomechanics.
Plaintiffs, Lisa Rentz Johnson and George Johnson, have brought a personal injury lawsuit involving an accident between two tractor-trailers in a parking lot. Lisa alleged she sustained physical injuries and disability because of the collision, including injuries to her head, neck, back, left arm, and left knee. George sought damages for alleged loss of consortium.
The Defendants retained Dr. Chris Cornett, an orthopedic spine surgeon with Nebraska Medicine, as an expert witness to perform an independent medical evaluation (“IME”) of Lisa.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude certain testimony and opinions found in Cornett’s report.
The Plaintiffs argued Cornett’s opinions related to the severity of the collision must be stricken and excluded from trial because he failed to provide the methodology by which he formed his non-medical opinions.
![](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/blog-pic-640X480-3.jpg)
Orthopaedic Surgery Expert Witness
Dr. Chris A. Cornett, an orthopedic spine surgeon with Nebraska Medicine, has more than a decade of experience as a trauma doctor. He attended medical school at University of Nebraska Medical Center and also has a master’s degree in physical therapy from the UNMC Medicine School of Allied Health Professions. He is a member of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).
Discussion by the Court
The Plaintiffs objected to Cornett’s description of the damage to the two vehicles based on the photographs he reviewed; Cornett’s noting, “The mechanism in this case and the photographs of the vehicles seem mild, and certainly not high energy in my opinion”; and his conclusion that he did “not see any reason, given this mechanism and the prior history, that one could medically state that this injury permanently aggravated or worsened those preexisting conditions.”
The Plaintiffs argued that since Cornett has no education, training and experience in anything other than orthopedics, all of his opinions on speed, impact and energy should be excluded.”
Cornett testified during his deposition that he did not see it was “reasonable medically that [Lisa] suffered a significant spine injury or a permanent worsening of a prior condition that ultimately required surgery.”
When Cornett was asked what qualifications he has “to assess the energy forces related to the impact of the case”, he responded, “I would say no qualifications, again, as a physicist or a biomechanical expert but just qualifications as taking Level 1 trauma call for over a decade.”
Cornett testified that through his experience as a trauma doctor, it is common to have some description of an accident, either through first responders directly or in subsequent reports.
The Court was satisfied that Cornett is sufficiently qualified and reliable to opine on the specific issues relevant to this case.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude certain testimony and opinions found in Chris Cornett’s report.
Key Takeaway:
Cornett lacked education in physics, engineering, accident reconstruction or biomechanics but testified that through his experience as a trauma doctor, it is common to have some description of an accident, either through first responders directly or in subsequent reports.
Case Details:
Case Caption: | Johnson Et Al V. C.R. England, Inc. Et Al |
Docket Number: | 8:21cv363 |
Court: | United States District Court, Nebraska |
Order Date: | July 15, 2024 |