---
title: "Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Opinion on Future Damages Admitted"
meta:
  "og:description": "Orthopedic surgery expert will assist the jury by providing an expert perspective on the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and her recommended future treatment"
  "og:title": "Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Opinion on Future Damages Admitted"
  author: "Expert Witness Profiler"
  description: "Orthopedic surgery expert will assist the jury by providing an expert perspective on the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and her recommended future treatment"
---

# Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Opinion on Future Damages Admitted

Posted on April 28, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler

This case concerns a motor vehicle accident involving the Plaintiffs, Vanessa Rivera and her minor child K.C., and Joseph Giordano, a driver for Defendants Safway Services, LLC and Brand Safway Services, LLC. The Plaintiffs asserted four counts of negligence against the Defendants and sought damages for the physical, emotional, and financial injuries they allegedly suffered from the accident.

Defendants filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. [Nikhil Thakur](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Nikhil-Thakur/1535203) and [Maryanne Cline](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Maryanne-Cline/1522372). Basically, the Defendants contended that Thakur’s opinions are not founded on a satisfactory level of analytical rigor and are not the product of reliable principles and methods.

Moreover, Defendants added that Thakur’s conclusions regarding future medical treatment were speculative under Massachusetts law governing future damages. Based on these challenges, Defendants argued that excluding the expert testimony would mean Plaintiffs could not establish the necessary amount in controversy, requiring dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

As for Cline, the Defendants’ only justification for moving to exclude her medical cost projections hinges on the preclusion of Thakur’s opinions.

## **Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness**

Dr. [Nikhil Thakur](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Nikhil-Thakur/1535203) is a Board Certified Orthopaedic Spine Surgeon, who specializes in Adult Reconstructive Spine Surgery. Previously, he was an Assistant Professor at SUNY – Upstate in Syracuse NY, where he performed over 300 elective and traumatic spine surgeries at a Level 1 Trauma Center each year. He also developed and ran the spine program at Upstate University at Community General. He continues to hold an adjunct professorship there and is actively involved in his stem cell lab, which he co-directs.

Thakur completed his spine fellowship at the prestigious Emory Spine Center in Atlanta, where he was involved in the care of the Atlanta Falcons. He also completed an orthopaedic trauma fellowship at Brown University – Rhode Island Hospital.

[Discover more cases with Nikhil Thakur as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1535203&amp;pId=1)

## **Life Care Planning Expert Witness**

[Maryanne Cline](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Maryanne-Cline/1522372) began her career in nursing in 1985 and specifically, rehabilitation nursing in 1991. She worked with traumatically injured clients at St. Anthony’s Medical Center in Crown Point, Indiana and in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Inpatient Unit at The Cleveland Clinic.

Her varied clinical experience includes cardiology, medical/surgical, oncology and hospice. Cline has nearly ten years’ experience in the field of Life Care Planning, first as a research assistant then becoming a Certified Life Care Planner in 2012.

[Get the full story on challenges to Maryanne Cline’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1522372&amp;pId=2)

## **Discussion by the Court**

### **Initial Arguments**

Defendants moved to exclude the testimony and opinions of plaintiffs’ experts, Thakur, an orthopedic spine surgeon, and Maryanne Cline, a certified nurse life care planner. They argued Thakur’s opinions were inadmissible under [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjnjuyHxfqMAxVrmq8BHdx_IAoQFnoECDkQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Dwdko1Vi2lma79vUiAbXa). Defendants asserted his opinions lacked satisfactory analytical rigor and did not result from reliable methods.

### **Methodology**

The Court evaluated Thakur’s methodology for forming his expert opinions. Thakur based his opinions on a physical examination of Rivera. Furthermore, he also took her medical history and interpreted medical records from her other healthcare providers. Ultimately, the Court found this approach constituted a reliable methodology under [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.).

The Court addressed the Defendants’ specific challenges to alleged “errors and omissions” in Thakur’s report. **Specifically, Defendants argued certain points, like the fact that Thakur described the accident as a slip and fall instead of a motor vehicle accident or that Thakur did not reference any medical records contradicting his description of Rivera’s ongoing complications and his diagnosis of a C4-C5 disc herniation, warranted exclusion.** Nevertheless, the Court held that these disputes over the factual underpinnings of the report did not evince a “significant ‘analytical ga[p]'” between Thakur’s opinions and the record evidence.

The Defendants’ only methodological quibble—that Thakur did not wait until two years after the accident to measure Rivera’s maximum medical improvement—is not a significant enough analytical issue to merit wholesale exclusion of his opinions.

The Defendants next argued that Thakur’s conclusions regarding Rivera’s future medical treatment are “speculative and precatory” and must be excluded under Massachusetts law governing recovery for future damages.

A Plaintiff, however, “is not restricted to compensation for suffering and expense” that “will _inevitably_ follow,” because “suffering and expense following an injury cannot be foretold with exactness.” Instead, a Plaintiff may be compensated for expenses “which by a fair preponderance of the evidence [she] has satisfied the jury reasonably are to be expected to follow.”

### **Relevance**

Under [Federal Rule of Evidence 403](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjCn_-gxfqMAxVOdPUHHRJXF0YQFnoECDYQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw1RmiEF8WP-SI8wVRElbe_q), the Court determined Thakur’s opinions had significant probative value which was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or jury confusion. **Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that the jury would improperly rely on Thakur’s credentials alone or become confused by the “stark contrast” between Thakur’s report and Rivera’s deposition testimony.**

Since Thakur’s opinions were admissible under Rules [702](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjnjuyHxfqMAxVrmq8BHdx_IAoQFnoECDkQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Dwdko1Vi2lma79vUiAbXa), [403](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjCn_-gxfqMAxVOdPUHHRJXF0YQFnoECDYQAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw1RmiEF8WP-SI8wVRElbe_q), and Massachusetts law, the Court likewise found that Maryanne Cline’s medical cost projections should not be excluded. After all, Cline based her opinions on Thakur’s admissible findings and recommendations.

## **Held**

The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the experts, Dr. Nikhil Thakur and Maryanne Cline.

## **Key Takeaways:**

- Ultimately, the “errors and omissions” highlighted by the Defendant did not evince a significant analytical gap between Thakur’s opinions and the record evidence.

- Because the evidentiary value of Thakur’s opinions is not substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion or unfair prejudice, exclusion of his report and testimony is unwarranted.

## **Case Details:**

---

## **You Might Also Like**

![Intellectual Property Expert&#39;s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T205412.117.jpg) [**Intellectual Property Expert’s Opinion on Misappropriation Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/orthopedic-surgery-experts-opinion-on-future-damages-admitted/intellectual-property-experts-opinion-on-misappropriation-excluded)![Automotive Industry Expert&#39;s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T191143.335.jpg) [**Automotive Industry Expert’s Testimony on Pricing Practices Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/orthopedic-surgery-experts-opinion-on-future-damages-admitted/automotive-industry-experts-testimony-on-pricing-practices-excluded)![Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-13T160600.039.jpg) [**Consumer Credit Expert Allowed to Opine on Mixed Files**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/orthopedic-surgery-experts-opinion-on-future-damages-admitted/consumer-credit-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-mixed-files)![Appraisal Expert&#39;s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T194055.299.jpg) [**Appraisal Expert’s Testimony on Deceptiveness Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/orthopedic-surgery-experts-opinion-on-future-damages-admitted/appraisal-experts-testimony-on-deceptiveness-excluded)![Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/blog-pic-640X480-2026-03-11T153456.164.jpg) [**Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on EMDR Therapy**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/orthopedic-surgery-experts-opinion-on-future-damages-admitted/psychology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emdr-therapy)