Radiology Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Claims of Being Cumulative
Posted on November 6, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff was driving his vehicle on LA 21 in St. Tammany, Louisiana, when he alleged that Reginald Mitchell (Defendant), attempted to merge into the left lane while operating a tractor-trailer, causing a collision. As a result of this collision, Plaintiff sustained injuries. Defendants retained Dr. Ryan T. Fitzgerald, a radiologist, and Dr. Everett G. Robert, a neurosurgeon, to testify as expert witnesses.
Robert opined that he would not recommend surgery and that Plaintiff’s injuries were not related to the automobile collision. Fitzgerald reviewed Plaintiff’s diagnostic imaging and he is expected to testify that the imaging “of the cervical and thoracic spine obtained post-Accident on February 19, 2022 revealed no objective findings of trauma but rather, exhibited chronic multilevel degenerative disease and numerous potential degenerative pain generators unrelated to the Accident.”
As a result, the Plaintiff filed a Daubert motion in limine to exclude or limit Ryan T. Fitzgerald’s testimony.
Radiology Expert Witness
Ryan T. Fitzgerald earned his medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) College of Medicine. He specializes in neuroradiology. Fitzgerald joined Radiology Consultants in July of 2017 and is a member of the Radiology Support Communication and Alignment Network (R-SCAN) committee.
Discussion by the Court
Plaintiff claimed that Fitzgerald’s testimony should be excluded because it was cumulative of Robert’s testimony. According to Plaintiff, allowing Fitzgerald to testify would confuse the jury, waste time, and present repetitive evidence, which could unfairly prejudice Plaintiff. Alternatively, Plaintiff requested that Fitzgerald’s testimony be limited to avoid redundancy with Robert’s testimony.
Defendants asserted Fitzgerald’s testimony would benefit the jury by adding clarity and fostering the jury’s understanding of the complex imaging presented to them at trial. They pointed out that Plaintiff did not raise a Daubert challenge to Fitzgerald’s testimony. Since Fitzgerald and Robert have different specialties, Defendants asserted that they formed their respective opinions based on different vantage points.
A review of Robert and Fitzgerald’s expert reports reveals that their separate specialties led the doctors to approach their analyses of Plaintiff’s medical conditions from different vantage points. Robert is a neurosurgeon who performed an independent medical examination of Plaintiff. Fitzgerald is a radiologist, whose review was limited to the diagnostic imaging. Although Robert also referenced the diagnostic imaging, Fitzgerald has specific expertise in that area as a radiologist. Therefore, while there may be some overlap in their testimony, the Court held that the reports of Robert and Fitzgerald are not cumulative of each other.
Coming to the same conclusion does not make the reports duplicative. Any objection to Robert and Fitzgerald’s conclusions are best addressed on cross examination. Considering that exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 should occur only sparingly, the Court will allow Defendants to call both experts. However, testimony at trial may be limited to the extent that it is cumulative and causes undue delay.
Held
The Court denied Plaintiff Shaun E. Howard’s Daubert motion in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of Ryan T. Fitzgerald.
Key Takeaway:
Robert is a neurosurgeon who performed an independent medical examination of Plaintiff. Fitzgerald is a radiologist, whose review was limited to the diagnostic imaging. Although Robert also referenced the diagnostic imaging, Fitzgerald has specific expertise in that area as a radiologist. Therefore, while there may be some overlap in their testimony, the Court held that the reports of Robert and Fitzgerald are not cumulative of each other.
Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:
Neurosurgery Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Despite Lack of Textual Support
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 9, 2024 |
