Radiology Expert’s Appropriateness of Treatment Opinions Admitted
Posted on October 24, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon was involved in a motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) in April 2021 that left her with “a permanent injury to the body as a whole” leading to this underinsured motorist benefits and loss of consortium case.
One of Defendant’s expert witnesses, Dr. Richard A. Ofstein, emphasized that Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s brain imaging was “most consistent with, if not diagnostic for, an incidental cavernous angioma,” rather than a TBI. As for her spine and shoulder injuries, Ofstein opined these were consistent with aging or “degenerative” changes or disease, rather than an acute trauma.
In reaching the opinions outlined in his report, Ofstein consulted the medical records for Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon that were provided to him, including numerous diagnostic images (MRIs and angiograms).
Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Ofstein from testifying at trial. According to them, “ Ofstein is not qualified to give such opinions,” “his opinions are not based on sufficient facts and data,” and “his opinions are not based on a reliable scientific methodology.”
Radiology Expert Witness
Richard Alan Ofstein is a radiologist with over forty years of experience. He is board certified in Diagnostic Radiology and has a Certificate of Added Qualifications in Neuroradiology. He is currently an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Radiology at the University of Utah and previously worked as an Assistant Clinical Professor of Radiology at the UCLA School of Medicine. Additionally, Ofstein worked in private practice for most of his career.
Discussion by the Court
Qualifications
Plaintiffs argued that Ofstein is not qualified to give the opinions from his report. According to them, “although Ofstein might be qualified to give radiology opinions, i.e., what he sees on Plaintiff’s diagnostic imaging, he is not qualified to give opinion testimony on the specific causation of injury that might arise as a result of a motor vehicle accident, nor the appropriateness or relatedness of any treatment incurred or to be incurred by Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon.”
The Court disagreed. A radiologist may opine on the likely cause of an injury observed in radiological imaging, such as whether an injury results from an acute trauma or degeneration. Furthermore, Ofstein made clear in his deposition that he was not opining on the medical appropriateness of Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s spinal and shoulder surgeries. Rather, Ofstein clarified that he was “addressing the relationship of the need for surgery and the accident at issue.”
In other words, Ofstein’s opinion on the surgeries was appropriately limited to the fact that the injuries addressed by those surgeries were not caused by the motor vehicle accident. This opinion falls within the expertise of a radiologist.
Methodology
According to Plaintiffs, Ofstein’s methodology in reaching his opinions was unreliable. They complained that “Ofstein’s opinions are not founded on any established scientific method” because “he solely relies on the deposition of the Plaintiff in performing his clinical correlation and coming to his opinions.” Plaintiffs also contended that Ofstein’s “opinions are not based on sufficient facts or data”: “Ofstein’s deposition testimony shows that his opinions on causation and relatedness or appropriateness of treatment were based only on him looking at the radiological studies and medical records from [Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s] treating providers after the subject accident.” Thus, in Plaintiffs’ view, “Ofstein’s opinion in this case lacks the proper informational foundation to opine on causation and relatedness or appropriateness of medical treatment.”
Again, the Court disagreed. Ofstein used a trustworthy methodology in reviewing Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s radiological images in reaching his conclusions.
The fact that Ofstein “did not review any of Plaintiff’s medical records outside of the radiology reports produced by Plaintiff’s treating physicians” did not render his methodology unreliable. Ofstein’s review of the radiological imaging, the radiology reports from Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s treating physicians, as well as the police report from the accident and Plaintiff Sabrina Solomon’s deposition, supports that he applied a sufficiently trustworthy methodology in reaching his opinions.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs Sabrina and Stanford Solomon’s Daubert motion to exclude causation and appropriateness of treatment opinions of Defendant’s expert, Dr. Richard Ofstein.
Key Takeaway:
The methodology used by Ofstein is standard and consistent with the literature and methodology used by radiologists in the United States. The fact that the expert radiologist did not review Plaintiff’s complete medical
records did not render his methodology unreliable. In fact, it is consistent with the way that radiologists interpret films every day.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Solomon Et Al V. Aig Property Casualty Company |
| Docket Number: | 8:24cv2650 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division |
| Order Date: | October 23, 2025 |
