In a recent decision by the federal district court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the court focused on the extent of specialized knowledge necessary for expert testimony to be admissible under Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702.
In that case, Riley v. Target Corp., 2006 WL 1028773 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2006), the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant after tripping over “wet floor” cones that had been placed directly behind him in a Target retail store. The plaintiff fell into a table and chair, and claimed that this fall caused subsequent avascular necrosis (“AVN”) in his hip and a tear of the medial meniscus in his knee. The defendant wanted to show that the plaintiff’s injuries were preexisting and degenerative in nature.
The defendant moved to exclude the expert testimony of two doctors: Dr. Kent, the plaintiff’s family practitioner; and Dr. Schrantz, an orthopedic surgeon who ordered MRIs and performed surgery on the plaintiff. Both doctors were prepared to testify that the two injuries were a result of the plaintiff’s fall. The defendant challenged the admissibility of the doctors’ testimony, arguing that Dr. Schrantz’s opinion was based on flawed reasoning and that Dr. Kent conceded that he was not an orthopedic specialist and would defer to the opinion of Dr. Schrantz.
The district court first held that Dr. Schrantz’s testimony was admissible. Despite his conclusion that the AVN was caused by trauma, Dr. Schrantz conceded that he would not expect the type of fall the plaintiff suffered to cause AVN, and that it is believed in the medical community that AVN takes six to twelve months to develop to the extent suffered by the plaintiff (whereas Dr. Schrantz operated on the plaintiff only 66 days after the fall). However, using differential diagnosis in ruling out all other possible causes as even more unlikely, he concluded the fall was the most likely of the various unlikely causes. The court found that because Dr. Schrantz used and correctly applied differential diagnosis, a long accepted methodology, Dr. Schrantz’s opinion was admissible, and any inconsistencies he himself had pointed out went to the weight of his testimony.
The testimony of Dr. Kent concerning the plaintiff’s torn meniscus was held admissible, but not his conclusion as to the AVN. The court distinguished the two conditions and testimony regarding their cause by opining that a meniscus tear is a common condition frequently encountered by family physicians, while AVN is not. Although it was brought out in deposition that Dr. Kent was not aware of the various aspects of a tear that help distinguish a degenerative tear from one caused by trauma, his knowledge of tears in general was specialized enough for his opinion to be admissible. The court stated that physicians routinely rely on other physicians in the course of treating patients, and that despite Dr. Kent’s reliance on Dr. Schrantz’s opinion and unfamiliarity with some aspects of the injury, his testimony would still be helpful to a jury. However, Dr. Kent did not know all the factors that can cause AVN, and thus could not perform the differential diagnosis that Dr. Schrantz did in concluding that the AVN was trauma-induced. Consequently, the court ruled that he could testify as to his first-hand observations of the plaintiff’s hip before and after the fall, but was not qualified to render an opinion as to the cause of the injury.
John W. Rourke is the Eighth Circuit Editor of Daubert Online and a member of the Steering Committee for DRI’s Fidelity and Surety Law Committee as well as the Expert Witness Chair for that Committee. He is a principal with the St. Louis, Missouri law firm of Reinert & Rourke, P.C., and a member of the Missouri and Illinois bars and is admitted to practice before a number of federal courts. Mr. Rourke’s practice emphasizes business and commercial law, fidelity and surety law, construction and real estate law, international law and litigation. In addition to his significant trial experience, Mr. Rourke is a mediator and arbitrator. Mr. Rourke is a member of the Congress of Fellows of the Center for International Legal Studies and a Director of World Link for Law. He can be reached at Reinert & Rourke, P.C., 812 North Collins, Laclede’s Landing, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, (314) 621-5743 (tel.) or (314) 621-8071 (fax) or email: jrourke@reinertrourke.com. For further information, click on: http://www.reinertrourke.com.
Chris A. Michener is an attorney with the St. Louis, Missouri law firm of Reinert & Rourke, P.C. and a member of the Missouri bar. Mr. Michener earned his J.D. from St. Louis University in 2005, during which time he was a law clerk at Evans & Dixon and was involved in the SLU Legal Clinic. He can be reached at Reinert & Rourke, P.C., 812 North Collins, Laclede’s Landing, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, (314) 621-5743 (tel.) or (314) 621-8071 (fax) or email: cmichener@reinertrourke.com.
[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]
