In a decision last week Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal spelled out the limits of biomechanical engineering expert testimony in personal injury cases. In Clark v. Hahn the District Court reversed and remanded for a new trial a defense verdict based in part on a defense biomechanical expert’s testimony who opined that the physical forces at play in a car accident were insufficient to cause intervertebral disc herniation in the plaintiff’s cervical spine.
Plaintiff’s counsel argued at trial that while it was permissible for a biomechanical engineer to talk generally about the mechanism of injury and physical forces present in an accident he could not talk applying his findings specific to the plaintiff in the case. The trial judge agreed but despite that ruling the ultimate scope of defense counsel’s questioning touched upon application of the analysis to plaintiff specifically.
The District Court commented: “…biomechanical engineers typically are qualified to opine about an accident’s forces and the general types of injuries those forces may generate. This is not so for opinions about the precise cause of a specific injury since biomechanical engineers lack the medical training necessary to identify the different tolerance levels and preexisting medical conditions of individuals, both of which could evident fact of what injuries resulted from an accident.” Further, “…while biomechanical experts may discuss the forces generated by an accident how a hypothetical person’s body will respond to those forces, they are not qualified to render medical opinions regarding the precise cause of a specific injury”. Since the court was convinced that there was a reasonable possibility that this testimony contributed to a defense verdict a reversal was required.
This case illustrates that defense expert testimony is as capable of being stricken as any from the plaintiff’s side. It’s also instructive about the foundation that needs to be laid whenever discussing the physical forces of an accident to trial. It also raises the question of what expertise would be required by a physician to translate a biomechanical engineer’s findings about the physical forces into a medical opinion about those forces as applied to a specific plaintiff. Perhaps this opinion will raise the demand for forensic physicians with biomechanical engineering training.
